Feb 16 Senate Impeachment Court Record

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012
Republic of the Philippines
Senate
Pasay City
Record of the Senate

Sitting As An Impeachment Court
Thursday, February 16, 2012
AT 2:26 P.M., THE PRESIDING OFFICER, SENATE PRESIDENT JUAN PONCE ENRILE, CALLED THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICE RENATO C. CORONA TO ORDER. The Presiding Officer. The continuation of the Impeachment Trial of the Hon. Chief Justice Renato C. Corona of the Supreme Court is hereby called to order. We shall be led in prayer by the distinguished Senator from Cavite, Sen. Ramon Bong Revilla Jr. Senator Revilla. As John Chapter 5, verse 30 says, I can do nothing on My own. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I seek not My own will but the will of Him who sent me. Panginoon, sa pagtupad namin ng aming tungkulin bilang mga hukom tungo sa tamang kapasyahan, panatilihin Ninyo kaming matatag at gabayan Po Ninyo kami; pairalin Po Ninyo sa amin at sa taumbayan ang pagkakaisa, na sa prosesong ito walang pula, walang asul, at walang dilaw, dahil lahat kami ay nasa ilalim ng iisang bandila, iisang lahi na nagkakaisa sa layunin ng katotohanan at katarungan. Tulungan Mo Po kaming makamit ang katarungang ito, ayon sa Iyong kagustuhan, iangat Ninyo ang aming kamalayan at imulat Ninyo kami sa tamang landas na aming tatahakin. Sa harap ng pagsubok, bigyan Ninyo kami ng lakas ng loob at tibay ng damdamin upang labanan ang kasamaan, dahil Kayo ang aming lakas at kalasag, ang aming liwanag at kaligtasan.
In these times of great trials, grant us, Lord, another new day to thank You for a new life and strength to move forward. Take over our inequities and spread Your mantle of love and kindness, especially to those who are in the dark and in despair. Let the light of the Holy Spirit kindle into our hearts the need for understanding, respect and humility. Amen. The Presiding Officer. Amen. The Secretary will please call the roll. The Secretary, reading: Senator Edgardo J. Angara ............................................................... Present Senator Joker P. Arroyo ................................................................... Present Senator Alan Peter Compaero S. Cayetano ................................. Present Senator Pia S. Cayetano ................................................................... Present Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago .................................................... Present Senator Franklin M. Drilon ................................................................ Present Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada ....................................................... Present Senator Francis G. Escudero ............................................................. Present Senator Teofisto L. Guingona III ....................................................... Present Senator Gregorio B. Honasan II ........................................................ Present Senator Panfilo M. Lacson ................................................................ Present Senator Manuel Lito M. Lapid ....................................................... Present Senator Loren L. Legarda ................................................................. Present Senator Ferdinand Bongbong R. Marcos Jr. .................................. Present Senator Sergio R. Osmea III ........................................................... Present Senator Francis N. Pangilinan ............................................................ Present Senator Aquilino Pimentel III ............................................................. Present Senator Ralph G. Recto .................................................................... Present Senator Ramon Bong Revilla .......................................................... Present Senator Vicente C. Sotto III ............................................................. Present Senator Antonio Sonny F. Trillanes IV ........................................... Present Senator Manny Villar ......................................................................... Present* The President ..................................................................................... Present The Presiding Officer. With 22 Senator-Judges present, the Presiding Officer declares the presence of a quorum. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may I ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make the proclamation. The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms is directed to make the proclamation. The Sergeant-at-Arms. All persons are commanded to keep silent under pain of penalty while the Senate is sitting in trial on the Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move that we dispense with the reading of the February 15, 2012 Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court and consider the same as approved.
______________ *Arrived after the roll call
The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] There being none, the Journal of the February 15, 2012 hearing is approved. The Secretary may now please call the case. The Secretary. Case No. 002-2011, In The Matter of Impeachment Trial of Honorable Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader is recognized. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we ask the respective counsel for their appearances. Representative Tupas. Good afternoon, Your Honor, Mr. President. For the Prosecution panel of the House of Representatives, same appearances. The Presiding Officer. Noted. The Defense? Mr. Cuevas. For the Defense, Your Honor, the same appearance. The Presiding Officer. Noted. The Floor Leader is recognized. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, we are still in Article II. We have pending questions from the Senator-Judges to the witnesses: Ms. Annabelle Tiongson, branch manager of PSBank, Katipunan branch; the representative of the BPI Ayala branch; and also the president of the PSBank. So, may we ask the Prosecution for the continuation. Representative Tupas. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. The Prosecution may proceed to call their witnesses. Representative Tupas. Yesterday, the president of the PSBank was commanded by the honorable Presiding Officer to come back this afternoon. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, with due respect. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader is recognized. Senator Sotto. Yes, may we recognize Senator Defensor Santiago. The Presiding Officer. The lady Senator from Iloilo, Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, is recognized. Senator Defensor Santiago. Thank you. May I pose this question to the lead Prosecutor, please. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Senator Defensor Santiago. Mr. Prosecutor, is the witness on the witness stand your witness for the Prosecution, the person who is testifying that the attachments, meaning to say, what appear to be fax or xerox copies of the application form of the Defendant for his bank accounts? Are these the documents that you referred to in your Supplemental Petition? Representative Tupas. That is the document that we referred to. That is Annex A, but we did not mark it as our evidence.
Senator Defensor Santiago. On that point, may I please just enter into the Record the rule. The rule is that evidence must be offered at the time that the testimony of the witness has reached that point. We do not have to wait for a formal offer in writing of the evidence of the Prosecution or of the Defense. The offer of evidence is always at the time when the document is physically presented to the Court. That is just a parenthetical view. Now, I would like you to know this. That witness is your witness, is that not so? And your witness appears to have turned into a hostile witness because your arrogation or argument in the Prosecution panel is your attachments to the Supplemental Petition are genuine and your witness is testifying that they are fake, that is why this afternoon we are all holding our breath so that we can compare the two copies. Is that not so? Representative Tupas. With respect to the two witnesses, namely, Ms. Tiongson and Mr. Pascual, they are our witnesses insofar as to produce the documents that we have asked. Senator Defensor Santiago. Right. Representative Tupas. But those are the documents in possession and marked as exhibits.... The Presiding Officer. Counsel, the question to you is: Do you want these witnesses to be considered as hostile witnesses? Representative Tupas. At this point, no, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So, you are not treating them as hostile witnesses? Representative Tupas. As of now, Your Honor, no. The Presiding Officer. All right. Senator Defensor Santiago. All right. So, if he later produces documents which tend to prove their allegations that they are original copies in the bank vaults, that they are now going to produce before us this afternoon are correct, and there are discrepancies as had already been testified by these witnesses between your attachments, which purport to be copies of the originals, and the originals that they will bring, then, in effect, they will turn into hostile witnesses, is that not so? Because they will then controvert your own allegation. Representative Tupas. That is correct, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. In that case, then they will turn into hostile witnesses? Representative Tupas. Yes. The Presiding Officer. May I warn the Prosecution that if you do not consider these witnesses as hostile witnesses, any adverse statement made by them, adverse to your position as Prosecution will be binding on you. Representative Tupas. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So, it is a decision you have to make. Representative Tupas. That is why, Your Honor, as of now, our decision is, we do not consider the witnesses hostile but we just reserve later on the prerogative of the Prosecution to make the necessary action, Your Honor.
Senator Defensor Santiago. Well, I am just trying to help you, Counsel. This is sometimes allowed for a judge when the proceedings tend to be one-sided. I am just going to enter into the Record the rules on evidence concerning a witness who happens to become hostile in the course of her testimony. If she becomes a hostile witness, then you file a motion with our Presiding Officer to consider her a hostile witness. That way, you gain the right to impeach her or you gain the right to ask her leading questions even on direct. But if you insist now that she is your witness and never ask that she be considered as adverse, then you cannot impeach your own witness. You will then be bound later on by the comparisons on whether the two sets of documents are fake or genuine. You will be bound with what she says. That is my warning to you. This is just trying to be helpful to you. Representative Tupas. Thank you very much, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Do you understand the rule with respect to this kind of witness? Representative Tupas. We do understand, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Representative Tupas. Thank you for that, the honorable Senator from Iloilo. Senator Defensor Santiago. Just to avoid further argumentation later on this point. Counsel, do you notice that when a person or a witness testifies on the witness stand about a record, that, in effect, is testimony on hearsay because he or she did not actually perform the entries there? She is just presenting some other persons work. So, in effect, she is presenting hearsay evidence. Now, counsel, let me bring you to our happy memories of the U.P. College of Law. What did you learn in school about hearsay evidence? It is generally prohibited, except.... Representative Tupas. Except the exceptions to the rules. Senator Defensor Santiago. What exception are you going to cite now in favor of your witnesses since you claim they are Prosecution witnesses? Representative Tupas. We reserve to cite that later. Senator Defensor Santiago. No, the answer to the question is that you lay the foundation so that even if she did not accomplish the forms herself, the evidence will be admitted because this is an exception to the hearsay rule. So when you call the witness, I will request the Majority Leader that I should be called first so that I will show you, Counsel, how to lay the foundation. I read the Journal yesterday and you did not do that. If you do not lay the foundation for the authenticity of a document which, in effect, constitutes hearsay, then it cannot be admitted. I will wait for you to call your witness. Representative Tupas. Thank you so much for that, from the lady Senator from Iloilo. We appreciate that. The Presiding Officer. You just thank the lady Senator from Iloilo for guiding the Prosecution in the presentation of the witnesses. Your first witness. Representative Tupas. As we mentioned, Your Honor, yesterday, the president of PSBank, Mr. Pascual Garcia, was commanded by the honorable Presiding Officer to appear today at two oclock in the afternoon.
6
The Presiding Officer. Is he here now?
Representative Tupas. We were informed that....He is here, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right, bring him in and put him on the witness stand under the same oath. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. It is not really an objection, but a point being raised by one of the Members of the Court, Senator Osmea. May we recognize him. I believe he thinks that it should be the branch manager who should be called in first. The Presiding Officer. All right, what is the pleasure of the gentleman from Cebu? Senator Osmea. Thank you, Mr. President. If you will recall yesterday, Ms. Tiongson declined to testify on the documents that we had subpoenaed her to bring yesterday. She said she was not familiar because the documents had been sent to the head office. And so, I asked her to familiarize herself with them last night and to return today at two. So, therefore, may I request that the Court call for Ms. Tiongson to the witness stand first, then later on the president, Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. May I now direct the Prosecution to comply with the request of the gentleman from Cebu. Instead of the president, the first witness to take the stand ought to be the manager of the Katipunan branch of the bank involved. Representative Tupas. We comply, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. And may I direct the president to stay on those seats at the back so that he will be readily available to be asked questions in the course of the testimony of Ms. Tiongson. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Representative Tupas. Your Honor, Ms. Annabelle Tiongson is here, we are informed. The Presiding Officer. Put her on the witness stand under the same oath. Counsel for the Prosecution, proceed. Senator Osmea, I think, still has the floor to ask questions on the witness. Senator Osmea. Thank you, Ms. Tiongson. Ms. Tiongson, yesterday this representation asked you if you had complied with the subpoena and brought all the peso savings accounts, current accounts, time deposits, certificates of deposits, settlement accounts, investment management and trust accounts, unit investment trust funds, mutual fundsand I know you do not sell mutual funds in the PSbankand any and all other financial
instruments offered by the Philippine Savings Bank in the name of Chief Justice Corona. Did you bring those documents with you, Ms. Tiongson? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. Ms. Tiongson, would you like to present them to the Court, please? Ms. Tiongson. I have with me certifications on the peso accounts. Will I go through them, Your Honor, one by one? Senator Osmea. Yes, please. For the record, state the number of the account, the type of account it is, when it was opened, and the balance as of December 31 of those various years2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. The Presiding Officer. These are peso accounts? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And then they are linked to a particular PSBank account number in the name of the Respondent. Ms. Tiongson. Your Honor, they are all independent accounts. The Presiding Officer. Independent accounts. Proceed. Ms. Tiongson. The first account number requested was 089121017358 under the account name Renato Coronado Corona. The account type is peso time deposit with opening date on January 26, 2009. The opening balance is P2,100,000.00. The closing date is April 16, 2009. The balance as of December 31, 2002, based on the record, is none because the account was not yet opened. As of December 31, 2003, the account was not yet opened. The December 31, 2004, the account was not yet opened. Balances of December 31, 2005, account was not yet opened. As of December 31, 2006, account was not yet opened. As of December 31, 2007, account was not yet opened. As of December 31,... Senator Osmea. Ms. Tiongson. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. You do not have to go through those years when the account was not yet opened. Just tell us what was the balance of December 31, 2009 and on December 31, 2010. Ms. Tiongson. The balance based on the record as of December 31, 2009 is zero. The balance as of December 31, 2010 is zero. Senator Osmea. All right. Would you like to go to the next account? Ms. Tiongson. The next account is 089121019593. Based on the record, it is under the name of Renato Coronado Corona. The account type is peso time deposit. The opening date is December 22, 2009. The opening balance is P8,500,000. The closing date is December 12, 2011. So, I will start, Your Honor, with the balance as of December 31, 2009, which is P8,500,000. The balance as of December 31, 2010 is P12,580,316.56. The balance as of December 31, 2011 is zero. Senator Osmea. All right. Next account please.
Ms. Tiongson. I will go to the next account with Account No. 089121020122. Based on the record, it is under the account name Renato Coronado Corona. The account type is peso time deposit. The opening date is March 4, 2010. The opening balance is P3,700,000. The closing date is April 23, 2010. I will start with 2010. The balance as of December 31, 2010 based on the record is zero. Senator Osmea. Next account please. Ms. Tiongson. The next account is with Account No. 089121021681. Based on the records, the account is under the account name Renato Coronado Corona. The account type is peso time deposit with opening date on September 1, 2010. The opening balance is P7,090,099.45. The closing date is December 12, 2011. The balance as of December 31, 2010 is P7,148,238.83. The balance as of December 31, 2011 is zero. Senator Osmea. Very good. Next account please. Ms. Tiongson. The next account is with the Account No. 089121011957. The record shows that it is under the account name of Renato Coronado Corona. The account type is peso time deposit. The opening date is May 16, 2007. The opening balance is P2,000,000.00. The closing date was October 2, 2008. The balance as of December 31, 2007, based on the record, is P5,018,255.26. As of December 31, 2008, the balance was zero. Senator Osmea. Thank you for that. Ms. Tiongson, are there any other accounts? Ms. Tiongson. Your Honor, I also have here a bank certification signed by the president. May I just read it, Your Honor? Senator Osmea. Yes, please. Ms. Tiongson. Gentlemenit is dated February 14, 2012. This is to certify that Renato Coronado Corona has no peso account with Philippine Savings Bank that is classified as Investment Management and Trust Accounts or IMA, Unit Investment Trust Funds or UITF and mutual funds. This certification is issued in compliance with the subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum dated 13 February 2012 for whatever legal purpose it may serve. Signed by the president. Senator Osmea. Thank you. Now, does Justice Renato C. Corona have any other accounts of whatever kind in Philippine Savings Bank aside from those five accounts and not mentioning the dollar accounts? Ms. Tiongson. May I consult my lawyer? Senator Osmea. Yes, please. Ms. Tiongson. Your Honor, I do not have the record, I am sorry. Senator Osmea. Okay. Ms. Tiongson. that I have on hand. To my knowledge, Your Honor, I do not know but these are the only ones
Senator Osmea. Those are the ones you have on hand, you do not know? You are not saying there is none? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. That is all for this witness, Mr. President. I would like to reserve my right to propound questions of the president, Mr. Garcia, when the time comes. The Presiding Officer. You want to do it now? We will discharge the.... Senator Osmea. If it pleases the Court, yes. The Presiding Officer. The Senator from Iloilo. Senator Defensor Santiago. As I pointed out earlier, this testimony is hearsay because she was not the one who actually entered these into the records or actually received the money. But as I said, if you lay the foundation, then her testimony will become an exception to the rule against hearsay. I promised that I would show how to lay the foundation with this witness and I will proceed to do so under the time-honored tradition in the courtroom that if the lawyer is going to miss something extremely important to his case, the judge may step in and show the way and then after that turn it over to the Prosecution. So, please allow me to lay the foundation. Ms. Witness, did you recently receive a subpoena directing your bank to produce certain documents at this trial? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. You received a subpoena and you have been reading out these records to us. What are these records? What are they called? What are they entitled? Ms. Tiongson. Based on the record, it is called bank certification, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. Those are bank certifications. All right. What use does your company make of these kinds of certifications? Ms. Tiongson. These are usually issued, Your Honor, for whatever purpose that it is being served. Senator Defensor Santiago. That is a very vague specification. Tell your legal manager in the bank not to use that anymore. It is completely useless. It should have said that it was issued for the purpose of this impeachment hearing. So, we will so consider it. Ms. Tiongson. Your Honor, it says here that: This certification is issued upon the request of the Impeachment Court through subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum, addressed to the branch manager of PSBank Katipunan. Senator Defensor Santiago. All right. You already read out the information to us. So, we already know what kind of information is contained in that certification. So, let me ask you: Who receives and enters the information on these certifications? Who receives them in the first place? In your bank, what is your bank practice? Ms. Tiongson. For my branch, Your Honor, I can only speak for my branch, but for this particular case, when I received the subpoena, I endorsed it to the president and then he was the one who.... Is the Prosecution through with this witness?
10
Senator Defensor Santiago. No, you are not responding to my question. My question is: Who receives and enters the information that you have just read out to us? How do you know that this certain bank account has this amount there? Who gives you that information, originally, a clerk in your head office, a computer that generates the information? Who gives you the information? Ms. Tiongson. I honestly do not know, Your Honor, right now. Senator Defensor Santiago. Perhaps, Prosecution will know because this is your Prosecution witness. Normally, in your banking practice, who would know the information, for example, I think you call it initial balance or new account balance? When you open and you will deposit money to open an account, then it is entered in your record. Who enters these records? Who accepts the money that is considered an opening balance? Someone of your clerks there, is that not so? Ms. Tiongson. The new accounts clerk, Your Honor, will enter the information and then the money will be received by the teller. Senator Defensor Santiago. That is right. Yes. And they are the ones who enter the information in your computer system, would that be correct? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. That is right. That is why we are trying to prove that although you are not the person who received the money and although you are not the person who received the information from the client, still you can be a reliable witness. That is what we are trying to do. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. When do these clerks, these new accounts managers and other functionaries of the bank fill out these certifications? How was this certification made, for example? Ms. Tiongson. For this particular case, Your Honor, since a lot of information are required, and it is a special kind of certification, so it is only upon the instruction of the president that this was issued, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. Yes. But, who normally drafts that certification? Ms. Tiongson. Normally in the branch, in our practice in the branch, the new accounts clerk would normally prepare it and the officer will approve it through the system, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. Which officer will approve it? Ms. Tiongson. The branch service and control officer, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. And then what happens to the certification? Do you keep it on file or is it sufficient and you just issue it as commanded by the Court? Ms. Tiongson. As far as I know, Your Honor, I have not received any from the court. But normally, bank certifications, in my experience, were issued based on requests from clients for visa purposes. That is it. But for court purposes, I have not had that experience, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. All right. Let me ask another question. When the depositor first opens his account, he is asked to fill up certain forms, is that not so? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor.
11
Senator Defensor Santiago. All right. What happens to those application forms? There are quite a number of them. What happens to those forms? Ms. Tiongson. There will be two.... Senator Defensor Santiago. After the money has been received, what happens to those application forms? Ms. Tiongson. There are two sets of opening forms, Your Honor, one is kept in the branch and one is kept in the head office. Senator Defensor Santiago. All right. What ultimately happens to these two copies, one in the branch and one in the head office? What ultimately happens to them? Ms. Tiongson. I can only speak for the branch, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. All right. Ms. Tiongson. We will keep them in the filing cabinet inside the vault, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. I see. And how long does your bank keep these forms? For how long, five years? Ms. Tiongson. For as long as they are still open and even after they are closed. So, I think, within five (5) years, more or less. Senator Defensor Santiago. About, more or less, five (5) or seven (7) years. That is the usual bank practice, is that not so? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. Now, you have been qualified to testify and your testimony is now acceptable to the record even if what you are testifying on is technically hearsay. Counsel, take note. Mr. Custodio. Thank you, Madam Senator Judge, for the authentication. Mr. President, we would just like to mark the bank certifications presented to this Court today by the witness as our exhibits, Your Honor. Can we mark the bank certification pertaining to Account No. 089121017358 as...Permission to approach the witness, Your Honor, to view the documents? The Presiding Officer. You may. Mr. Custodio. Your Honor, the witness presented several documents which we would like to mark. We would like to mark the Bank Certification dated February 14, 2012 as Exhibit BBBBBBBBB. The Presiding Officer. Will you identify the account number to which that document is linked? Mr. Custodio. The certification of February 14 is pertaining to Account No. 089121017358, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Custodio. Exhibit BBBBBBBBB, Your Honor. The next document of even date, Your Honor, pertains to Account No. 089121019593 as Exhibit CCCCCCCCC, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mark them accordingly.
12
Mr. Custodio. The next document, Your Honor, of even date of February 14, 2012, pertains to Account No. 089121020122, Your Honor, and we request that it be marked as Exhibit DDDDDDDDD. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Custodio. Your Honor, the next bank certification we would like to mark, Your Honor, is again dated February 14, 2012 and this pertains to Account No. 089121021681, Your Honor. And, we request that it be marked as Exhibit EEEEEEEEE, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Custodio. And the next document, Mr. President, pertains to Account No. 089121011957 and we request that it be marked as Exhibit FFFFFFFFF, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Custodio. That will be all, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. No testimonial evidence? Mr. Custodio. No further questions for this witness, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Counsel for the Defense? The gentleman from Iloilo is recognized. Senator Drilon. Just a suggestion, Mr. President, if it pleases the Presiding Officer and the Members of our Court. There were questions on the deposits that were pending and that will be asked of the president of the PSBank. Before we ask questions on Annex A, just for an orderly presentation so that we do not lose track, can we just finish questions on the deposits, Mr. President? Just a suggestion for an orderly presentation and for us to follow the testimony. The Presiding Officer. What is your suggestion? Senator Drilon. Senator Osmea requested that he continue to ask questions on the deposits which this witness has said she is not aware of and presumably the president of the bank will know. Our suggestion, Mr. President, if it meets the approval of the Court, is that we first finish questions related to the deposits before we go on the question of Annex A of the subpoena which are the signature cards which were the subject of a very lengthy discussion yesterday. Just for an orderly presentation. The Presiding Officer. The question will be propounded to the witness, Madam Tiongson? Senator Drilon. Yes, and to the PSBank president, Mr. Garcia, Sir. The Presiding Officer. I think the gentleman from Cebu may do so first, to the witness now on the witness stand, Ms. Tiongson, and later on to the bank president. Senator Cayetano (A). Mr. President, with the indulgence.... The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Taguig. Senator Cayetano (A). Magandang hapon, Mr. President. I just have some questions for the witness to follow up the questions of those who spoke before me but I will not talk about Annex A. Maam, good afternoon.
13
Ms. Tiongson. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). Paki-narrate ninyo lamang po paano nangyari, dahil sabi ninyo pinadala ninyo lahat ng records sa main branch. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). So, after getting the subpoena, what happened? Ms. Tiongson. After getting the subpoena, I endorsed it to our president. Senator Cayetano (A). And then? Ms. Tiongson. For proper action because... Senator Cayetano (A). How did it lead up to the documents being sent to the main office? Ms. Tiongson. It was requested by our president how.... Senator Cayetano (A). Yes. But can you narrate the events? So binigay sa inyo.... The Presiding Officer. May I request that we let the witness finish her answer so that it will be recorded. What was the answer of the witness? Ms. Tiongson. It was requested or, if you say, ordered by our president that the documents be brought to the head office for proper safekeeping. The Presiding Officer. And you complied with that order. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The documents were personally picked up by the senior officer. The Presiding Officer. Did you make any inventory of the documents that you forwarded to the head offices attention of the president? Ms. Tiongson. I did not personally do it, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. But did anyone in your branch do it? Ms. Tiongson. I will have to check on that, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. You cannot just send a bunch of papers to the head office without listing what you are sending for your record purposes. Ms. Tiongson. I was not personally there when the documents were picked up by the senior officer, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So, it was picked up by a messenger from the head office from your branch. Ms. Tiongson. Not a messenger, Your Honor, but a senior officer. The Presiding Officer. Who was that senior officer? Ms. Tiongson. Our BBG head, Your Honor, our branch banking group head. The Presiding Officer. What is his name? Ms. Tiongson. Ismael Reyes, Your Honor.
14
The Presiding Officer. And did he sign for those documents? Ms. Tiongson. Sorry, I am not aware of the receipt. The Presiding Officer. Is that your procedure?
Ms. Tiongson. I am sure it is in the record, Your Honor. It is in the office. The Presiding Officer. Because I imagine, as a matter of practice Ms. Tiongson. Yes. There should be a transmittal. The Presiding Officer. documents passing from one branch to any branch or to the head office, you have to make a record of what was taken out from your office. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed. Senator Cayetano (A). Can you please backtrack? Basically, the Senate President asked the questions I would like to ask you. So you got the subpoena and then you informed the president, then how did it lead up to sending the documents there? What happened after you informed the president of the subpoena? Ms. Tiongson. After I informed him of the first subpoena, the documents were prepared and.... Senator Cayetano (A). Why were the documents prepared? Did he order you? Paki-narrate mo lang iyong paano nangyari iyon. Do not leave things out so I do not keep asking the question. Ms. Tiongson. I am trying to recall also. Senator Cayetano (A). Okay. Go ahead, whatever you can recall. Ms. Tiongson. Yes. Upon receipt of the subpoenaactually I received it in the head office, I was there when I received itand immediately went to him to personally show it to him and then he said he offered, Dont worry, Ill.... something like that, not verbatim, something like, Dont worry,parang he offered himself to be the one presenting or taking the stand. Senator Cayetano (A). Is that what he said? Then how did it lead up to getting the documents? Doon ba niya sinabing kunin.... Ms. Tiongson. That was before pa po because I think the Senator Cayetano (A). So the documents were ordered to be retrieved before the subpoena? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, yes, Your Honor, when, I think, this Impeachment Court started to hear. Senator Cayetano (A). So even before the subpoena pinakuha na lahat ng records? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). So, ibig sabihin iyong records na pinadala hindi mo sure kung lahat iyon ay nasa subpoena or mayroon pang ibang accounts na wala sa subpoena? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). So everything and anything that has to do with CJ Coronas accounts pinakuha before the subpoena?
15
Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). Meaning, your bank was expecting the subpoena? Ms. Tiongson. That I cannot say, Your Honor. I am sorry. Senator Cayetano (A). So, can you say whether iyong pinadala ninyong mga documents sa head office, ito iyong mga accounts lamangpesos lamang ha, peso accounts na diniskas (discuss) na dito or there are other accounts? Ms. Tiongson. I would not recall, Your Honor. I am sorry. Senator Cayetano (A). So you would not know kung mayroon o wala? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). Mayroon ba kayong iyong IMATA, investment management accounts? Ms. Tiongson. We have SDA but I think it is offered by trust. It is not really in the bank proper, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). Yes. And mayroon din si CJ Corona nito? Wala? Because Senator Serge asked you all of the Ms. Tiongson. No, Your Honor, because it is already covered by the certification that he has none. Senator Cayetano (A). He has none. All right. Then just a question on your records, sabi ninyo di ba may centralized kayo, computerized iyong inyong records, right? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). Is the signature card alsois there a digital copy inside the system? Ms. Tiongson. For current and savings account, yes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). So, meaning, iyong signature card kahit wala na sa inyo ang records, it could have been printed out. Ms. Tiongson. I cannot say that, Your Honor Senator Cayetano (A). No, halimbawa, may dalang tseke galing from a client pupunta sa inyo, di ba? Titignan mo sa computer iyong kanyang signature at saka iyongdi ba? Ms. Tiongson. Yes. Senator Cayetano (A). Kasi na-digitalized nathe digital copy of the signature card, di ba? Ms. Tiongson. Oo. Senator Cayetano (A). ini-encash, right? So, iku-compare mo iyong signature bago mo i-release iyong
Ms. Tiongson. Iyong perayes, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). So, since it is there inside the system and since you can print out from your system katulad nung certification, you can actually print out the signature card?
16
Ms. Tiongson. I could not say, Your Honor.
Senator Cayetano (A). Well, how can you print out other certifications but you cannot print out the Ms. Tiongson. There is a function there that says, print. Senator Cayetano (A). All right. But is that digital copy of the signature card only available in your branch or other branches of PSBank? Ms. Tiongson. For the current and savings, Your Honor, it can only be accessed upon a transaction. That is what I understand. Senator Cayetano (A). But sabi ng presidente ninyo kahapon una kayo na nationwide in some services? Ms. Tiongson. Oo. Senator Cayetano (A). So, does that include the encashment of checks? Ms. Tiongson. Encashment of checks, yes. Senator Cayetano (A). And you do know that there is a print screen function in all computers, ano? So as long as it is in the screen, kahit na mayroon kang security measure na to print out the document itself, you can print out the screen? Ms. Tiongson. I guess so, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (A). And last question doon sa pinag-aanuhan natin na dokumento, ano. Iyon ba ay one-time lamang pini-fill up or iyong ilalim noon na may mga accounts eh running form iyon, meaning, kung may bagong account, dagdag ka nang dagdag? Is it like a doctors record that everytime you visit, dadagdagan doon sa ilalim or is it a one-time record then you have a new record? That is my only question then I will yield to Senator Osmea. Ms. Tiongson. What I know, Your Honor, is that upon an initial account opening, the client fills it up. Regarding the subsequent account openings, I am not really very familiar because I am more on the marketing. But the operational side, it is the branch service and control officer. Senator Cayetano (A). So who would be familiar with that? Ms. Tiongson. The branch service and control officer. Senator Cayetano (A). Is that not most relevant kasi sabi ninyo may mga Ms. Tiongson. But as far as I know, we are not really required to write it down. Senator Cayetano (A). No. What I am saying is that, sinabi ninyo kasi kahapon mayroon na sa original na wala dito sa hawak natin dito sa Court, mayroon na sa Court na wala sa original. But if it is a running form, it depends at what time mo tiningnan ang form, which form, nasaan iyong form, hindi ba? That is why I wasif you are not familiar with that, that would be very relevant to the discussion of whether or not iyong entries nadagdagan. But, anyway, I promise not to ask questions on that and I yield to Senator Osmea. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. May I just suspend the trial for a moment for personal reasons. It was 3:15 p.m.
17
At 3:19 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. The trial is resumed. Proceed. The gentleman from Cebu is recognized. Senator Osmea. Yes. Ms. Tiongson, that is all I will be asking of you. May we now discharge this witness, with the permission of the Prosecution, Defense, and the Court. The Presiding Officer. Is there any further question to this lady witness? Mr. Custodio. None from the Prosecution, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. From the Defense? Senator Osmea. Senator-Judge Drilon would like to propound questions later on of this witness with the permission of the Court, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Well, the witness will remain in the Court, sit at the back and wait for your turn to be called by the distinguished gentleman from Cebu. The president of the bank will have to take this witness stand. (At this juncture, the President of the PSBank is being called to take the witness stand) Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please, we have some cross-examination questions on Ms. Tiongson, Your Honor. I was only out because I attended a personal necessity. I apologize. The Presiding Officer. You want Ms. Tiongson to take the stand first? Mr. Cuevas. No, Your Honor. I just want to manifest that we have not abandoned nor waived our right on the cross-examination. The Presiding Officer. All right. We will recall her to the witness stand at that time when all other questions are finished, so that you can proceed your cross-examination uninterrupted. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Custodio. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The President of the bank will now please take the witness stand. Mr. Custodio. Mr. President, may I make some point of clarification? The Presiding Officer. Yes. The gentleman from the Prosecution. Mr. Custodio. May we know, Mr. President, the right of counsel to propound further questions because the record will show that the direct and the cross-examination and no direct was made and the witness was discharged, and was called back only for further questioning by Senator-Judges. The Presiding Officer. The Defense Counsel, to defend his client, may cross-examine the witness even if presented by a judge of this Court, as a matter of fairness. He is open to questions that will test the credibility of the witness. Mr. Custodio. May we, then further, be clarified, Mr. President, that insofar as this bank president is concerned, despite his having been discharged we can also ask additional questions later?
18
The Presiding Officer. If you want to do a redirect, make the proper motion at the proper time subject to the objection of the Defense. Mr. Custodio. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. All right. So ordered. Proceed. Senator Cayetano (P). Mr. President, I would just like His Honor to remind the cameras about the order to be conscious about the privacy of the documents given that this is the document that contains information on both foreign and local accounts. May we just ask the Presiding Officer to remind the media present on the instructions His Honor gave yesterday, in the interest of the privacy of the clients of the bank. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. May I, for the last time, request the media people not to get surreptitiously a photo of the documents presented in this Court, otherwise, I will be forced to exclude you from the trial. So ordered. Proceed. Senator Osmea. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Garcia, good afternoon. Mr. Garcia. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. Mr. Garcia, you are or have you read the subpoena that was sent to Ms. Anabelle Tiongson, branch manager, PSBank, Katipunan Branch, Loyola Heights, Quezon City? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor, I have. Senator Osmea. All right. And this subpoena had been sent on, I believe, the 13th of February for her to appear on the 14th, and that you are now here also by virtue of this subpoena. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. All right. Yesterday Ms. Tiongson volunteered you as the witness that would answer questions as covered by the subpoena because she said that the records of the branch had all been collected or compiled at the head office of PSBank. Is that correct? Mr. Garcia. That is correct, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. Now, Mr. Garcia, the subpoena had asked for information, documents, bank statements for all peso savings, current time deposits, certificate of deposits, settlement accounts, investment management and trust accounts, unit investment trust funds, and there was a certification earlier submitted by your bank saying that there were nocorrect me if I am wrong no investment management and trust accounts, unit investment trust funds under the name of Justice Corona. Would you like to enumerate again those accounts which Justice Corona does not have at PSBank? Yes well I would like a copy of that, with the permission of the Court. The Presiding Officer. Provide the Senator-Judge of Cebu copy of the document.
19
Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, I have certified that Renato Coronado Corona has no peso account with Philippine Savings Bank that is classified either as investment management and trust account, a unit investment trust fund or a mutual fund. And I have done so in compliance with the subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum dated February 13, Your Honor. This has been earlier formally submitted by our branch manager. Senator Osmea. Yes. Thank you for that. So therefore, no investment management or trust accounts, no unit investment trust funds, no mutual funds. Is that correct? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. So therefore, he has certificate of deposits, settlement accounts, time deposit, current accounts and savings accounts? Mr. Garcia. Are you asking me, Your Honor? Senator Osmea. I am asking you because the subpoena covered also those other accounts. Mr. Garcia. Yes, sorry, Your Honor. With respect to that, we do have other peso-denominated accounts under Renato Coronado Corona which were not subject matter of the original subpoena which we were ordered to present. In response to your question and in response to the instruction of the Court in this subsequent subpoena, we do stipulate, Your Honor, that there are other peso accounts that are not in the original subpoena Senator Osmea. By the original subpoena, you mean Mr. Garcia. The first one. Senator Osmea. that was served on you in January? Mr. Garcia. In February 8, I believe, or 7 which contained the five peso time deposit accounts. Senator Osmea. Yes. The Presiding Officer. February 6.
Mr. Garcia. February 6, I stand corrected, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. Would the Prosecutor like to inform us what date that subpoena was issued? Representative Tupas. As far as I remember, February 6, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. All right. And so therefore, would you like to identify the accounts? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. That were not covered by the February 6 subpoena but were later covered by the February 13 subpoena. Mr. Garcia. With your indulgence, Your Honor, I will just get the
20
Mr. Cuevas. Clarificationfor clarification only, Your Honor.
The subsequent subpoena later than the February 8 is February 14, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. Thirteen. Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor. Yes, dated 13th day of February but the production required is February 14,
Senator Osmea. That is correct. Production on the 14th. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you. Senator Osmea. Thank you. Mr. Garcia. Well, Your Honor, we have today actually certifications on two other accounts and we would like to apologize for the two other accounts because when we earlier prepared it based on the subpoena there was some clarification discussed, Your Honor, about it not including accounts that are not in the original subpoena so we did not The Presiding Officer. Are these peso accounts? Mr. Garcia. Peso accounts, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. If they are peso accounts, since you have testified on them now, I think it is proper for you to tell us what are those peso accounts? Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, if I may? The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Garcia. We have another peso account with Account No. 089121021444, under the account name Renato Coronado Corona, a peso time deposit that was opened on July 23, 2010, with an opening balance of P7,370,438.65 and this was closed in September 1, 2010. Senator Osmea. You mean it was openedit was time deposit for only three months? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. Okay. The Presiding Officer. Is that connected with any of the five accounts previously mentioned in the subpoena already recorded in this proceeding? Mr. Garcia. No, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So this is a totally separate account? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. This is not in the original subpoena but on the basis of the subsequent subpoena because it says, All The Presiding Officer. No, I am just askingthe Presiding Officer just wants to Mr. Garcia. Yes, sir. The Presiding Officer. be sure that that is not included in the amount already mentioned that were connected with the five accounts.
21
Mr. Garcia. It was not connected, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So this is a totally separate account and separate amount of money deposited in the bank? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Garcia. We also have another account under Account No. 089121023848 under the name of Renato Coronado Corona, a peso time deposit with an opening date of June 29, 2011 with an opening balance of P17,000,000.00. The Presiding Officer. How much? Mr. Garcia. Seventeen million pesos, Your Honor, and which was closed and terminated on December 12, 2011, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Is this also an account separate from those amounts related or linked with the five peso bank deposit accounts Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. mentioned earlier? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. account number? This is a new amount of money deposited with a separate bank
Mr. Garcia. It was a separate account with a separate account number but the source of the funds deposited, we have no idea. The Presiding Officer. Correct. Proceed. Mr. Garcia. In addition, Your Honor, if I may, based on the instruction, there are two other accounts but I really have no details as of the moment. I can only remember that one isI will probably disclose it formally later and then the other one is a current account. Senator Osmea. Now, would you like to repeat the number of the second account and the date in which it was opened? That was opened July Mr. Garcia. July 29, 2011 for P17 million and closed in December 12, 2011. Senator Osmea. What was the original tenor, Mr. Garcia, of this account? I mean, was this just a six-month time deposit or was it a one-year time deposit which was closed prematurely? Mr. Garcia. I am very sorry, Your Honor. I do not have that information right now because we just followed the subpoena. If I may continue? Senator Osmea. Would you like to furnish us with that later? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. We can furnish that later. Senator Osmea. Opo. Ano pong number itong peso time deposit?
22
Mr. Garcia. This is 089121023848.
Senator Osmea. All right. July 29, December 11that does not sound exactly six months, no? Does that look strange to you? Mr. Garcia. I really have no idea, Your Honor. There are depositors actually who would put deposits depending on, you know, different tenors so if I have the other information, I may. Senator Osmea. Let me see if I got you right. July 29, 2011 was. Mr. Garcia. June 29, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. June 29, 2011, I am very sorry. Mr. Garcia. And it was closed in December 12, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. He does not know the tenor. But June 29 to December 12 is not six months, no? Mr. Garcia. No, Your Honor, not exactly six months. Senator Osmea. But the coincidence here was that the impeachment was filed a few days after December 12on December 12? Representative Tupas. If we may, Your Honor, with that? The impeachment date was mentioned, can we say when? Mr. Cuevas. It is a matter of record, anyway. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Representative Tupas. The House impeached the Chief Justice on December 12, 2011. The Presiding Officer. All right. Senator Osmea. All right. Now, Mr. Garcia, can you explain to the Court the difference between a deposit and an investment account? For exampleI will be more specificif I, your client, asked you, the bank, to buy some ROPs for me, these are dollar-denominated bonds issued by the national government, is that classified as a deposit or as an investment? Mr. Garcia. Well, first of all, Your Honor, we do not provide that service to our clients. We refer them to our parent bank, Metrobank. PSBank does not engage in that kind of activity, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. But would you know, I mean, being a banker yourself? Mr. Garcia. It would normally not be classified as a deposit. Senator Osmea. It would be an investment? Mr. Garcia. Investment, yes. Senator Osmea. Would you also handle investments for your client, like he would direct you to buy some corporate bonds, PLDT bonds, ABS-CBN bonds, San Miguel bondsthat would also be classified as an investment?
23
Mr. Garcia. That would, I know, be classified as an investment but the bank per se does not really provide that service because we have the parent bank. Senator Osmea. You mean, PSBank per se? Mr. Garcia. PSBank. We just refer their. Senator Osmea. But you will be the next president of Metrobank. Mr. Garcia. No, sir. I have written to my superiors and I have told them that on the basis of that news report, I already specifically said that if ever it is offered, I will decline it because I do not want my people to feel they are being abandoned during this time. And secondly, I do not want the sincerity of our interest to protect our employees and depositors and the entire banking industry to be misinterpreted. So, I will not and never accept. Senator Osmea. And your employees will stick by you more than ever now because of that sign of loyalty to them, Mr. Garcia. Mr. Garcia, going back to my question. Would an investment account vis--vis a deposit account be considered as covered by the Foreign Currency Deposits Unit Law? Mr. Garcia. No. Senator Osmea. The FCDU Law pertains to deposits, hindi ba? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Osmea. All right. You just said that any managed account that is invested, say, in ROPs, Philippine bonds denominated in U.S. dollars, or other types of foreign instruments denominated in foreign currency would not be termed a deposit as covered by the FCDU and, therefore, any such accounts should be open to this Court. Mr. Garcia. I cannot, right now, categorically state, Your Honor. But if I can draw, I draw from the peso side. The investment in government bonds is classified as deposits for the peso. So, perhaps, likewise, the inference to the dollars would similarly be the same. So, I am not absolutely certain about that. Senator Osmea. Mr. President, at this time, I would like to give way to Senator-Judge Drilon who signified his intention to propound....Senator-Judge Jinggoy Estrada. The Presiding Officer. Before I recognize Senator Estrada, I would just like to find out from the president of PSBank why you required the transfer of all the records of this depositor in your bank who is the subject of an impeachment to be delivered to you as president from the Katipunan branch of your bank. Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, we have always managed risk in the bank, and given that the.... The Presiding Officer. What do you mean by managed risk in the bank? Mr. Garcia. We manage different types of risks, Your Honor, whether it be risk on delinquency, or other events that happen. In this particular case, we have an impeachment process.
24
This is a national process. We felt that, ultimately, perhaps, documents of the customer would become the subject matter of, perhaps, inquiry, and there is a lot of interest on it. These documents were in the branch. We believe that it would have just been prudent for us to properly control them better and so we took possession of these documents. I instructed even senior officers to take possession of it from the branch, and restored it in head office. We put it under even tighter control, where even senior officers are the ones who have control over these documents, Your Honor. Because we felt that, ultimately, we may have to, in some form or another, be responding to the Impeachment Court. So, we always want to make sure that what we provide to the Court would be the accurate, honest, everything, and that these documents cannot be accessed by anyone else, altered or anything, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. You did this motu proprio without any influence or inducement from outside parties? Mr. Garcia. Absolutely not, Your Honor. We did it as a prudent measure to make sure that these documents are even tightly controlled, just so that we have them and they are properly secured. The Presiding Officer. All right. The gentleman from San Juan, the President Pro Tempore has the floor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to bring to the attention of the manager Account No. 089121019593. I think this is included in the original subpoena, if you have the record, Mr. Witness. Mr. Garcia. May I refer to our Counsel. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Please, please. Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Yes. Do you have it? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. When was the opening date? Mr. Garcia. The opening date of Account No. ...593 was December 22, 2009. Senator Ejercito Estrada. 2009. Is this a peso time deposit? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. What was the length of the time deposit, if you may know? Mr. Garcia. I am not absolutely certain right now because time deposits could be rolled over, Your Honor, that is, 30, 60. What I am certain of is the closing date. Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right. What was the closing date? Mr. Garcia. The closing date was December 12, 2011. Senator Ejercito Estrada. What about Account No. 089121021681, also a part of the original subpoena? Mr. Garcia. With respect to Account No. ...681, which is also a peso time deposit, it was opened on September 1, 2010 and closed on December 12, 2011.
25
Senator Ejercito Estrada. December 12, 2011. And you mentioned the twoI do not know if it is a new account089121023848, the one you just recently mentioned. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. which was opened. If I am not mistaken, it was opened on June 29, 2011, and it was closed on December 12, am I right? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Do you know the length of time of this time deposit? Was it three months, six months or even a year? Mr. Garcia. I presently do not have that information and I can provide it. Senator Ejercito Estrada. In your opinion, was this particular account pre-terminated? Mr. Garcia. I cannot categorically state right now because I will have to look at the maturity date. Because when we open an account, let us say, if it is for 60 days, you have the account opening date and a maturity date. So, when an account is terminated before the maturity date, then we would normally classify it as a pre-terminated account because it did not run its full term. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Because I do not want to impute malice, but for me it is quite suspicious. These three accountsNos. 0891210953, 089121021681, and the last that you mentioned, 089121023848they were all closed on the day that the Chief Justice was impeached. And according to Congressman Tupas, the Chief Justice was impeached on December 12, 2011, and all of these three accounts were closed. Ayokong magsuspetsa, pero ayokong mag-isip ng malisya. Pero nagsususpetsa talaga ako. Iyon lamang po, Ginoong Pangulo. The Presiding Officer. Anything else with this witness? The gentleman from Pampanga. Senator Pangilinan. Thank you, Mr. President. Just a few questions to the witness, Mr. Pascual. Earlier, you mentioned that for Account No. 089121023848, the amount was P17 million and it was withdrawn or terminated on December 11, correct? Mr. Garcia. December 12. Senator Pangilinan. December 12. Once an account is terminated, would you know how the termination process....Can you explain to us what the termination process would be? Is there notice? How does that go? Mr. Garcia. There is notice from the customer, Your Honor, that he or she will terminate an account. It may be an advice to us and the manner of that termination, whether it is going to be paid out in whatever form. And so, the branch would normally comply with the customers instructions. Senator Pangilinan. And in this case, would you have information as to what form was undertaken oryou said, whatever form? In the case of the P17 million, was there a written notice to you? Was there a check issued? How does that go? Would you have the information? Mr. Garcia. I really do not have that specific information right now, but we can provide it on the instructions of the Court.
26
Senator Pangilinan. Yes, Mr. President, perhaps, another additional information and documents that we would like for this Court to retrieve. What is the termhow the termination was undertaken? Are there written documents to this effect? And is there a way of determining where the funds went? Mr. Garcia. Definitely, Your Honor. The funds flow can be determined. Sometimes the instructions can be relayed either over the phone or in person, or in writing. Senator Pangilinan. So, how do we go about this? Would you personally know if he called you? Did the Chief Justice call you about this or the bank manager? Would you have personal knowledge? Mr. Garcia. I have never talked to the Chief Justice, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. So that is for the P17 million. You can trace where the P17 million went. Mr. Garcia. I have an idea, Your Honor, but I would not want to stipulate it right now because I want to be absolutely certain. Because when we prepared the original....When we started preparing for the last subpoena, we looked at all of the records but, unfortunately, I do not have it right now because I did not anticipate that this would be.... Senator Pangilinan. And would you be able to say the same and give us the needed information for the 089121021444 account, P7,370,000.00? Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, we can provide any information with respect to any peso account upon the instructions of the Court, anything. Senator Pangilinan. So, Mr. President, we would like to manifest that the documents mentioned, the needed documents to explain the transfer of these two accounts be submitted to this Court. The Presiding Officer. The President of the PSBank is ordered to comply. Mr. Custodio. In the meantime, Mr. President, may I be recognized. For the Prosecution, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Custodio. May I just, at this point, adopt and again mark the documents presented today by the witness as our evidence, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. You may. Mr. Custodio. May I approach the witness, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Custodio. Witness presenting to Counsel, Your Honor, two documents: one dated February 14, 2012, pertaining to Account No. 089121023848, Your Honor. We request that this be marked as GGGGGGGGG. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly. Mr. Custodio. And the other document, Mr. President, is a document of even date which is a bank certification and this time pertaining to Account No. 089121021444, Your Honor, which we respectfully request to be marked as HHHHHHHHH. The Presiding Officer. Mark it accordingly.
27
Mr. Custodio. That would be all, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor, please. Senator Sotto. The Defense, Mr. President. Mr. Cuevas. May we now proceed with our scheduled cross-examination of Ms. Tiongson, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. In the meantime, the president is discharged and you sit at the back and Ms. Tiongson will take the witness stand under the same oath for cross-examination. Mr. Cuevas. With the kind permission of the Honorable Court, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Cuevas. Good afternoon, Ms. Tiongson. Ms. Tiongson. Good afternoon, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. Now, while you were on direct examination a couple of minutes ago, I heard you state that you have no personal knowledge insofar as the entries appearing in the various documents that were presented to you this afternoon. Am I right? You have no personal knowledge? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. Meaning to say, you are not a participant, neither have you taken any step in connection with the correctness, accuracy and truthfulness of the entries appearing in the said documents? That is correct? Ms. Tiongson. No, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. That is correct. All right. Now, there was a statement made by the honorable Senator-Judge Miriam Defensor Santiago that your statement, therefore, in connection with the said entries are considered hearsay and, therefore, not admissible in evidence. Did you hear her state about that? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. And to make it as an exception to the hearsay rule, she was apparently alluding to entries in the regular course of business. Am I right, or you do not know that? Ms. Tiongson. Can you please clarify, Sir? Mr. Cuevas. And in order to make it as an exception to the hearsay rule, similar to the other exceptions like a dying declaration, statement by a co-conspirator, statement against pedigree, you were asked the question how it happened to be in those entries? Mr. Custodio. Objection, Your Honor. Witness will be incompetent with respect to legal points. The Presiding Officer. She is under cross. Let her answer. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir.
28
Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Sir. Now, if they were entries made into the records that you have testified a while ago and you are not a participant in the entries made, somebody must have known the facts that resulted in the entry into those statements. Am I right? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. And I heard you mention also about the identity of these persons, or you do not know them? Ms. Tiongson. Mr. Garcia would be the best person to answer that. Mr. Cuevas. The persons responsible for making the entries appearing in the documents that you mentioned. Ms. Tiongson. What I know, Sir, is that they got it from our.... We have this computer system that we enter the transactions and then it goes to our servers there in the head office, so they can be accessed by them. Mr. Cuevas. My question to you is: Do you know these persons who made the entries? Ms. Tiongson. The persons who made the entries, Sir, come from the branch. Mr. Cuevas. Do you know them personally? Ms. Tiongson. They are part of the branch personnel. Mr. Cuevas. Who are they, please? Would you kindly tell the Honorable Court? The Presiding Officer. Please identify the individual persons who are allowed by your practice to make the entries. Ms. Tiongson. As I have mentioned earlier, the persons who enter the transactions are the new accounts clerks. At the time that the transactions were made and the branch personnel who processes the validation of the deposit is the teller, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. What I am asking you is a simple question. Who are they? Their identity. Ms. Tiongson. Sir, that happened a few years back and I could not....I would not know, Sir, because I was not yet there. Mr. Cuevas. So, you do not know them personally? Ms. Tiongson. No, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. You were not with them at the time the entry was made. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. I see. All you know is that they were there because when you examined the documents, there were entries made. Am I right? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. All right. In accordance with the rule on entries made in the regular course of business, the statements or the entries appearing therein must be made and testified to by the person making the entry. Do you know that?
29
Ms. Tiongson. No, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. Or you do not know.
Ms. Tiongson. I do not know, Sir. Ms. Tiongson. And you do not care, therefore, whoever made the entries, whether it was made by Mr. A, Mr. X or Mr. C. Ms. Tiongson. No, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. So, you cannot vouch, therefore, for the validity or correctness of the entries made in there? Am I right? Ms. Tiongson. We can, Sir, because we have the records. Mr. Cuevas. No, I am not asking you about the records. The entries made in those documents. The Presiding Officer. Just answer the question. Can you vouch to the accuracy and verity of the entries since you were not there? Ms. Tiongson. Sir, I was not there. Mr. Cuevas. You cannot therefore. Ms. Tiongson. No. Mr. Cuevas. That is my understanding. Now, you, therefore, cannot tell the Honorable Court that those entries were made at the time of the transaction stated in there. Am I right? Ms. Tiongson. Since I was not there, Your Honor, no. Mr. Cuevas. You cannot. So, you also cannot tell the Court when those entries... The Presiding Officer. What was the answer of the witness? Mr. Cuevas. Kindly speak a little louder, Ms. Tiongson. The Presiding Officer. What was your answer? Ms. Tiongson. I cannot, Your Honor The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Cuevas. I cannot.
Ms. Tiongson. ...based on the fact that I was not there. But if we base it on the records, we will be able to verify. Mr. Cuevas. I am not asking you about the records. I am asking you a very simple question. Ms. Tiongson. Okay. Mr. Cuevas. So, you cannot. That is your answer. All right. Would you also be able to tell the Court when those entries were actually made by the persons you were alluding to because that is a requirement in connection with entries in regular course of
30
business? It must be testified to or known by the person making the entries, the time the entries were made, and therefore he can vouch on the accuracy and correctness of the entries. Ms. Tiongson. Based on the records, Sir, we can. The Presiding Officer. No. Do you know it personally? Ms. Tiongson. Personally, no, Sir. The Presiding Officer. That is the question. Ms. Tiongson. No, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. So, it is very clear now that all your testimonies given a while ago in connection with the entries appearing there, are based only on what you found on the records? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. They were based on the record. Mr. Cuevas. They are not based on your personal knowledge. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. And therefore, that is what is known in the law of evidence as hearsay evidence. Do you understand that? Yes, Sir. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you. That is all with the witness, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Since there is a cross, you may ask a redirect question. Senator Sotto. Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago wishes to have the floor, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The gentle lady from Iloilo. Senator Defensor Santiago. Just on this particular point, since I have already gone to the trouble of having this testimony admitted. Just to add to the questions of Defense Counsel. Ms. Witness, we just want to recite the necessary fundamental questions. Were these records made at or near the time of the acts and events appearing on it? Is that your company procedure? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. Yes. Was that record kept in the ordinary course of a regularly conducted business activity? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. Yes. Now, let us read the rules on evidence.... The Presiding Officer. Is this an application of the principle of res gestae? Senator Defensor Santiago. No, we are referring to Section 43, Entries in the Course of Business, The Presiding Officer. All right.
31
Senator Defensor Santiago. particularly of Section 37, which begins with the listing of the exceptions to the hearsay rule. Here is one exception. SEC. 43. Entries in the course of business. Entries made at, or near the time of the transactions to which they refer, by a person deceased, or unable to testify, who was in a position to know the facts therein stated, may be received as prima facie evidence, if such person made the entries in his professional capacity or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty. So, all you know is that this person must have followed regular entries or regular procedures of entries in the course of business? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. That is all you know because you were not personally present? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. Therefore, it lies with Prosecution now to comply with the other requirements of Section 43. You have to show that the entries were made at, or near the time of the transactions, by a person who is unable to testify. Do you think, Ms. Witness, that the person who personally made the entries might still be able to testify? The Presiding Officer. Answer the question please. Ms. Tiongson. I will have to check on that, Your Honor, because they might not be connected with the bank. Senator Defensor Santiago. That is right. That is what we are thinking. That is what your Court is thinking. So, at least, under Section 43, what you have testified is prima facie evidence unless, otherwise, disproved. Is that not so? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. Counsel for the Prosecution, will you take over please. [Laughter] The Presiding Officer. Now, Counsel for the Prosecution, make a redirect question. Mr. Cuevas. Maybe he will be adopting the examination of the honorable Senator-Judge, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. You may, Counsel for the Defense. Mr. Custodio. Again, our most generous thank you to the lady Senator from Iloilo for aiding us and educating us, Mr. President. Mr. Cuevas. But may we know, Your Honor, the nature of the examination to be made now because we are already through with our cross? The Presiding Officer. Precisely. Mr. Cuevas. It must be in the concept of redirect, Your Honor.
32
The Presiding Officer. Correct, not only in connection, they cannot go beyond the questions asked during the cross-examination. Mr. Custodio. Thank you, Mr. President. You refer again to your record, Ms. Witness, particularly the certification pertaining to Account No. 089121019593. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. Mr. Custodio. Your record that you brought showed it was closed on December 12, 2011. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. Improper for redirect, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Are you cross-examining your witness? Mr. Cuevas. We have not cross-examined her on that point, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Precisely, I am asking because the tendency of the question is a crossexamination. Mr. Custodio. In the interest of justice, Your Honor, these are questions that the witness may need to testify on, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. It was objected to. So, what is the pleasure of the gentle lady from Iloilo? Senator Defensor Santiago. Mr. President, I would like to know, since there are two kinds of rules on whether a question can be asked on recross. First, you have direct and then cross, and then you have redirect and recross. There is a technical rule that cross can only examine the witness with respect to what has been examined on direct. So, there is a limitation, that is why it is very technical and the same rule should apply on redirect and recross. You can recross examination only on the topics that have been covered by redirect. That is the technical rule. But there is another rule called the open rule where on cross-examination and on recrossexamination, the counsel can just ask any kind of question and is not necessarily limited to what has been touched upon in direct or in redirect examination. May I please request a ruling from our Presiding Officer on whether we adopt the narrow rule or the open rule? The Presiding Officer. I would adopt the open rule because in cross and recross, you mix up the right of the Defense counsel to test the credibility of the witness. Mr. Cuevas. Besides, Your Honor, there is no manifestation whatsoever on the part of the counsel for the Prosecution relative to being permitted to ask additional direct, additional redirect, Your Honor, or direct question. That will disrupt or revolutionize the law on evidence, Your Honor. On direct, after the direct, cross; after the cross, redirect. But that is limited to matters that were taken up in the cross-examination, Your Honor. That is why we posed that objection and we do not think that is a technicality because it goes deeper into the right of the accused, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. This may well be the time to state the underlying rule in impeachment trial. For what I have read is that the strict rules of evidence in criminal trial are normally not adopted in impeachment trial. So, that is why, I have been trying to balance between the strict rules of evidence and a certain degree of liberality. So, let us allow the witness, the Prosecution to propound question on his redirect and examine each question whether that is a proper question in redirect. Mr. Cuevas. This is entirely a new matter.
33
The Presiding Officer. What was the last question? Mr. Cuevas. That is our perception of the question, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Precisely, I asked the gentleman whether he is doing a redirect or.... The tendency of the question is trying to question the competence of his witness. Mr. Custodio. No, Your Honor. I am on redirect, I am asking redirect examination, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right, proceed. Proceed to make a redirect examination. Mr. Custodio. Thank you, Mr. President. Ms. Witness, in your certification for Account No. 089121019593, the closing date there appears to be December 12, 2011. Is that correct? Ms. Tiongson. Correct, Sir. Mr. Custodio. All right. There is no entry in your statement. Would your record show if there is an amount closed or closing balance or closing amount for December 12, 2011 for that particular account? Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, I hope the Court will pardon me. This is a very leading question, and this is very vital and instrumental. The Presiding Officer. Correct. Try to reform your question. Mr. Custodio. Thank you, Mr. President. Can you tell us the closing amount as of December 12, 2011 for this particular account? Mr. Cuevas. Almost the same objection, Your Honor. It is more leading now than before. Double. The Presiding Officer. Let the witness answer if there is or there is none. Mr. Custodio. May I repeat that? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Sir. Mr. Custodio. What is the closing balance for this particular account on December 12, 2011? Mr. Cuevas. The best evidence will be the document itself, Your Honor. What is involved is the content of the document. The Presiding Officer. Let the witness answer. Mr. Custodio. May I explain, Mr. President? The Presiding Officer. No more. Let the witness answer. Ms. Tiongson. Sir, may I just refer to the previous subpoena? Because I think that was already covered. The Presiding Officer. Can you answer the question? The question is simple. The account was closed on December 12, 2011. Was there a closing balance at the end of that month? Ms. Tiongson. Sir, right now I do not have it, Your Honor, so I cannot say how much it is, the closing balance.
34
The Presiding Officer. What is that? The record does not have it? Ms. Tiongson. Right now, yes. I do not have it, Your Honor. Mr. Custodio. Would your branch have records pertaining to the closing balance for this particular account? Ms. Tiongson. As I have said, Your Honor, all the records are already in the head office. But they are there, not in the branch. Mr. Custodio. Yes. I see. So, it would be within the office of your president? The Presiding Officer. When you say that an account is closed, what does that mean? Ms. Tiongson. The account has been withdrawn, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. In other words, the amount, iyong pera doon sa account ay tinanggal na? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Oo. Papaano magkakaroon ng balance the day after tinanggal iyong pera diyan sa account na iyan? Common sense will tell us that there is none, hindi ba? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. That is why it is zero here. Mr. Custodio. No, no. Mr. President, we are pertaining to the date of closure on December 12, 2011. What was the balance that was the last withdrawn balance for that particular account on that date? The Presiding Officer. Do you know what was the amount withdrawn on December 12 when the account was closed? Ms. Tiongson. I do not have the data, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. That is the answer. Mr. Custodio. Would you be able to bring the records, Ms. Witness, and present it to the Court for the next hearing? Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please,.... The Presiding Officer. What record is there? Closed na. Mr. Custodio. Mr. President, we are referring to the records that they have that will show that on December 12, a certain amount was withdrawn from that particular account. The Presiding Officer. To clarify this point, finally, what was the balance of this account before it was closed on December 12? On December 11, do you know what was the balance of this account? Ms. Tiongson. I do not have the record, Your Honor. So, I do not know. The Presiding Officer. All right. The gentleman from Cavite is recognized. Senator Lacson. Just to save the time, I think the Prosecutor is asking the wrong person. She already testified and the president of the bank testified that all the records were sent to the head office. Just to save on time, Mr. President.
35
Mr. Cuevas. Thank you. Mr. Custodio. Thank you. The Presiding Officer. That is correct, incompetent na nga iyong witness. Mr. Custodio. In that case, Your Honor, because my next question would also be of the same nature, I will have no further questions for this witness. The Presiding Officer. Are you sure you are closing your redirect? Mr. Custodio. Yes, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Okay. So, what is the pleasure of the Defense? Mr. Cuevas. No recross, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Senator Sotto. ...Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Majority Leader. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we recognize Sen. Loren Legarda, if there is no recross. The Presiding Officer. The gentle lady from Antique is recognized. Senator Legarda. Maybe I should start with the question of the Majority Leader. The Majority Leader is requesting that this question be answered. In behalf of Senator Sotto, then I will not proceed to my first question which is actually very, very simple. He is asking what is the relevance or the materiality of the question of the Prosecutor regarding the closure of the December 12, 2011 account to the SALN? That is not my question. That is the question of the Majority Leader. Mr. Custodio. There is evidence, Your Honor, that shows that three accounts were closed on the same date of December 12, 2011, and this will show that this was in preparation because of the impeachment complaint that was filed. Senator Legarda. We are referring to the December 12, 2011 closure of the three accounts, is that correct? Mr. Custodio. Yes. Senator Legarda. And we are referring in your Articles of Impeachment to the SALN which was filed in 2011 ending December 2010, is that correct? Mr. Custodio. That is correct. Senator Legarda. What is therefore the relevance of a 2011 December closing of the account to the end December 2010 SALN? That is the question of Senator Sotto. Mr. Custodio. Insofar as the relevance of the three accounts closure to December 31 which was the reporting date of the SALN, Your Honor, it has no direct relevance. Senator Legarda. It has no direct relevance. Mr. Custodio. We are only intending to show that there was an attempt to conceal certain amounts. If there will be a consideration of three amounts, of the three accounts, Your Honor, it totals about P36.2 million, Your Honor.
36
Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please, may we....
Senator Legarda. Thank you, Mr. Prosecutor. Senator Sotto is seemingly satisfied with the answer to his question. Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please, may we make a short manifestation? Only one minute manifestation, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Mr. Cuevas. Now, they are referring to an account existing as of December 2011 and allegedly, there was an irregularity in this because it was not reflected in the statement of account of the honorable Chief Justice. How can it be reflected? It must be in the year thereafter, before April of 2012, Your Honor, not on the same year. The end na po iyon. So, if the purpose is to show that this was not included, or stated, or entered into his Statement of Assets and Liabilities, the question is very erroneous, it is irregular, and it has no legal basis. The Presiding Officer. We will take note of your manifestation. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Just a one point, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Iloilo. Senator Drilon. We just take note that the account number ending in 593 was existing as of December 31, 2010. The Presiding Officer. All right. Senator Drilon. Because it was opened in 2009 and closed on December 12, 2011. Therefore, it was existing as of December 31, 2010. Just for the record. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Senator Legarda. May I have my turn, Mr. President? The Presiding Officer. The gentle lady from Antique. Senator Legarda. So, just to summarize in answer to Senator Sottos question, there is no direct relation between the closure of the three accounts to the SALN of 2010. Now, I proceed to my questions before Ms. Anabelle Tiongson. Very simple, it will not deal with each and every account. Just a simple question I am certain you would not need to ask your counsel for this. Based on your previous testimonies, there are three persons apart from yourself who have access to the vault containing the bank documents of Chief Justice Renato Corona, is that correct? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. In your recollection, Ms. Tiongson, have you given any information in the form of a hard copy, soft copy, original or photocopy, a faithful reproduction of the original, or even just verbally, of any of these documents in the vault pertaining to Chief Justice Coronas accounts in your branch to any person in the past days, weeks or months?
37
Ms. Tiongson. No, I did not, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. To your knowledge, did any of the three persons who have access to the vault possibly give any information of that nature to anyone? Ms. Tiongson. To my knowledge, no, they did not, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. When did you realize that there was a leak from documents that were kept in your vault in your branch? Ms. Tiongson. It was that Petition of the TRO. Senator Legarda. When you received a subpoena or when you learned about the case in media or were you advised by your superiors in the bank? Ms. Tiongson. I think I was advised by the superiors. Senator Legarda. You were called by bank officials along with the three others who have access to the vault. The Presiding Officer. Two others. Senator Legarda. Three. Is it two or three? I understand there are two and there is one alternate. So, four of you altogether. Is that correct, Ms. Tiongson? The Presiding Officer. Correct. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. So, there are four of you. Okay. You are, therefore, saying that neither of the three or yourself had given any information about the documents pertaining to the bank accounts in question which were contained in the alleged leaked document which contained the peso and dollar bank accounts information of the Chief Justice. Ms. Tiongson. No one has ever given any information to anyone in the branch, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. In any form. Ms. Tiongson. In any form, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. Yes. And you also mentioned in your testimony that there was an ongoing internal investigation of the bank regarding this reported leak, is that correct? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. May we know when the investigation started and the status of the investigation? Ms. Tiongson. I think Mr. Garcia would be the best person to answer that because he ordered it, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. He ordered the investigation upon finding out about the leaked documents? Ms. Tiongson. Actually, he was the one who informed me that they did an investigation. Senator Legarda. May we know what kind of questions were asked of you regarding the reported leaked documents?
38
Ms. Tiongson. Well, they asked us who accessed the vault, things like that, and they checked on the documents and they noticed that there were markings and the....Maybe you could.... Senator Legarda. You can just kindly answer it to the best of your knowledge and ability. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, yes. Senator Legarda. Yes. So just continue telling me what you are saying. Ms. Tiongson. If I may recall, the audit performed the investigation on the side and with regard to asking us, they just asked us point-blank if we had anything to do with it. And we did not. Senator Legarda. Have not, did not? Ms. Tiongson. We have not. We have not done anything about it. Senator Legarda. In your recollection. Ms. Tiongson. I mean, we did not do anything to leak or give out any information or any document to any person. Senator Legarda. Did anyone outside of the four of you ask for information regarding the bank documents of CJ Corona which were in the vault? Has anyone approached you? Did anyone ask for information.... Ms. Tiongson. Outside of the four of us, Your Honor? Senator Legarda. Yes. Ms. Tiongson. It was just from the office of the president, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. When the investigation was ongoing. Ms. Tiongson. It actually started when the accounts were closed, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. When the accounts were closed, information was requested from bank officials? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. And this was in connection with the ongoing internal audit or investigation? Ms. Tiongson. It was not related to the leaked document. Senator Legarda. This precedes the leaked document occurrence or after? Ms. Tiongson. When we were asked of the certain information, it was by the senior officers, Your Honor, because there was withdrawal. So, we were just requesting for approval. That was it. But to other persons not authorized, we never disclosed anything or gave out anything. Senator Legarda. Yes. So, you categorically state that you or the three others did not give any information even verbally or in any shape, manner or form to anyone? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. Can you also categorically state that no one has actually asked you for information or whether persons or a person attempted to secure information from you or any of the three who have access to the vaults?
39
Ms. Tiongson. Your Honor, may I consult my counsel? Senator Legarda. Yes, you may. Ms. Tiongson. First, may I ask the Presiding Judge to consult the counsel. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Ms. Tiongson. Your Honor, if I may. There was a certain person who approached me. He went to the branch. Senator Legarda. Who is this person? Ms. Tiongson. Congressman Banal. Senator Legarda. Who is Congressman Banal? An incumbent congressman? May we just know the circumstances in which he went and what he asked you to produce for him? Ms. Tiongson. He did not ask me to produce anything, he just ask if I could help and then he presented sort ofthe photocopies. Senator Legarda. Can you complete the story, so that I would not have to piece it together for all of us? Ms. Tiongson. All right. He went to the branch and then I thought he was going to open an account. Anyway, he presented himself, introduced himself that he was congressman already because I thought he was still a councilor. So, he said that maybe we could help him or I could help personally in my capacity. And then, I said, Im sorry, thats not possible. The Presiding Officer. What help did he ask you to do? Ms. Tiongson. Just a guide on certain items in the documents that he was showing. The Presiding Officer. What document was that? Ms. Tiongson. He showed me a photocopy similar to the one in Annex A. The Presiding Officer. What photocopy of what document? Senator Legarda. What photocopy of what document did he present to you? Ms. Tiongson. Photocopy of the specimen signature card. But he was partly covering it so I could not see everything there. Senator Legarda. Can you just kindly repeat what he requested you to do and what kind of document he asked you to help him with? Just for clarity. Ms. Tiongson. It was not really clear what he wanted from me but he was just asking if I could guide him through the document, like he was asking about certain items there, like if I can see Senator Legarda. May we know what date this was, if you recall. Ms. Tiongson. I will try to recall, Your Honor, but may I consult my counsel. Senator Legarda. Just direct before your counsel, this is just a date. It does not need Ms. Tiongson. I cannot recall the date, Your Honor.
40
Senator Legarda. Was it last year in 2011 or 2012? Ms. Tiongson. Just recently, Your Honor. Ah, yes, 2012.
Senator Legarda. The month of January or February? After New Year, within the month of January or was it the month of February? Ms. Tiongson. January, latter part. Senator Legarda. Did you have a document similar to what is now referred to as Annex A? Ms. Tiongson. I was not able to see the whole of it because it was partly covered. Senator Legarda. But you said, if I recall a few minutes ago, that there was a document similar to Annex A. The Presiding Officer. With the permission of the lady Senator, when you said, partly covered,... Ms. Tiongson. He was covering it, Your Honor. He was doing like that. (Demonstrating a folded piece of paper). The Presiding Officer. Congressman Banal was covering the document, meaning, that he was hiding it from you? Ms. Tiongson. He was doing like that, Your Honor, parang he was showing like that. The Presiding Officer. Like that, I cannot understand what is like that. Please describe the manner by which Congressman Banal showed you the document? Ms. Tiongson. Your Honor, may I ask to consult.... The Presiding Officer. No, you answer the question. Ms. Tiongson. He was holding a piece ofI do not know how many pages, I think two. Two pages of white paper and then he partly opened it and then just pointed out. The Presiding Officer. What did you see when he opened it? Ms. Tiongson. He asked about the.... The Presiding Officer. What did you see when he opened it? Ms. Tiongson. It was a signature card, Sir. The Presiding Officer. Hah? Ms. Tiongson. Signature card. The Presiding Officer. Of what? Ms. Tiongson. Of our bank, so I asked him where he got it. The Presiding Officer. Whose signature card was it? Ms. Tiongson. Apparently.... The Presiding Officer. Whose signature card was it?
41
Ms. Tiongson. Initially, I did not see the name, Your Honor. And apparently, it was under the name of Chief Justice Corona. The Presiding Officer. Of? Ms. Tiongson. Of Chief Justice Corona, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Did she tell you that? Did that congressman tell you Ms. Tiongson. I saw it, Your Honor, upon....
The Presiding Officer. When she showed you the documentwhen the congressman showed you the document.... Ms. Tiongson. It was.... The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. When the congressman showed you the document that she was partly covering, you saw that it was a signature card? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And that the signature card was the signature card of Chief Justice Corona? Ms. Tiongson. Allegedly, there was a name there, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Precisely, it was allegedly the signature card of Justice Corona? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. You saw the imprint of that name on the signature card? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right, and she was covering it up? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And what did she ask you to do by way of help? Ms. Tiongson. She asked about dollar signs and I said it was blurred. Actually, it is really blurred. The Presiding Officer. He asked you about a dollar sign? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. How did she ask you? Ms. Tiongson. Well actually, when.... The Presiding Officer. How did she ask you about the dollar sign? Ms. Tiongson. What is this? Is this a dollar sign? Something like that. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Ms. Tiongson. And then when I said I cannot help him, he just left. The Presiding Officer. When was thewhen did this Congresswomanwas she a woman?
42
Ms. Tiongson. Congressman, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Congressman, but female or male? Ms. Tiongson. Male, Your Honor.
The Presiding Officer. What did hewhen did that congressman see you? Ms. Tiongson. I am trying to recall, Your Honor. Latter part of January. The Presiding Officer. Was it at a time when we subpoenaed you? Ms. Tiongson. Before, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. How many days before? Senator Legarda. Mr. President, she said end of January. May we know to your recollection what day in the end of January, Ms. Tiongson, please? Ms. Tiongson. May I refer to a calendar, Your Honor? Senator Legarda. Yes, okay, thank you. Ms. Tiongson. It was a Tuesday, I think. Senator Legarda. Can she be given a 2012 calendar, please? Ms. Tiongson. I think it was January 31, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. January 31. The Presiding Officer. Okay, proceed. Senator Legarda. Thank you. Just a last question, Mr. President. It was January 31 when you alleged that Congressman Banal requested you for information or assistance on a photocopied document which looks like Annex A. You are not certain because.... Ms. Tiongson. I am not certain, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. Yes, yes. On a dollar and peso account. But it was also in this Court that the Prosecution claims they received an Annex A, photocopied document, on February 2. If they received it on February 2 from a reported small lady, but they actually had it already on January 31? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Legarda. So, I am just putting that information before the Court, Mr. President, because I am quite confused because if that document was in the possession of the Prosecution on February 2, is it another document from the document being shown or that was shown to Ms. Tiongson for verification? No, I do not expect you to answer that question, Ms. Tiongson, it is just a question in my mind. Thank you for that. My last question is, did you bring the logbook as requested by the Court? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor.
43
At a proper time, my colleagues will ask questions about
Senator Legarda. the logbook. Thank you very much.
Okay.
The Presiding Officer. May I ask this question first? Was the approach of Congressman Banal to you before or after the president of your bank requested you to forward all the records of this account pertaining to Chief Justice Corona to the head office? Ms. Tiongson. Before, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Before the records were forwarded to the head office. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. It was before. The Presiding Officer. And those signature cards are kept in the vault or steel cabinet that is under the control of two bank officers in your bank, in your branch? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor, under the control of two personnel. The Presiding Officer. And that you did not, at any time, ask those two branch officers to open the vault? Ms. Tiongson. I did, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Huh! Ms. Tiongson. I did. The Presiding Officer. You asked them to open the vault. Ms. Tiongson. We checked the records if they were there and if they were safe. The Presiding Officer. Why did you check the records if they were there? Ms. Tiongson. We went in and we got the folder. The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. You said you did open the steel cabinet to check whether the records were there. Did you do that as a consequence of the request of Congressman Banal? Ms. Tiongson. No, Your Honor. It was after he left that we checked the folder, Your Honor. I requested them to get it so we can review it. The Presiding Officer. And the signature cards were there? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Did you not ask Congressman Banal, how did he happen to be in possession of that signature card? Ms. Tiongson. I did, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And what was his answer?
44
Ms. Tiongson. I will tell you if you will help usas soon as you help us, something like that. I cannot recall. Something like that, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. No, no, I want the exact words of Congressman Banal if you can remember it. Ms. Tiongson. If you will help us, I can tell you, something like that, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. How they got it? In other words. Ms. Tiongson. I asked him kasi, How did you get that? The Presiding Officer. And what did he say? Ms. Tiongson. So many people are helping us, something like that, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So many people. In other words, he admitted that they got this record from your record? Ms. Tiongson. Not necessarily, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. What do you mean by not necessarily? Ms. Tiongson. Because it can come from other sources, Your Honor. I cannot say. I really do not know, Your Honor, but definitely, it did not come from us. The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute. How can they have an access to your record under the security procedure that you described to us? How can anyone? Ms. Tiongson. I do not know, Your Honor, but looking at it but some annex. The Presiding Officer. But he said, I will tell you if you will help us. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, but I did not. Of course, I said, I am sorry, I cannot help you. The Presiding Officer. Meaning, he will tell you how he got it if you will help him? Ms. Tiongson. Something like that, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago wants the floor and then Senator Pangilinan. But right after, we can move for a break, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Yes, the gentle lady from Iloilo. Senator Defensor Santiago. With the indulgence of our colleagues, it seems to meit seems, even to myself that the Prosecution has my good side today. So, let me ask you, Ms. Witness? Before he appeared before you, identifying himself as Congressman Banal, did you know personally his face or his appearance? Did you have some definite recollection on how Congressman Banal looks? Ms. Tiongson. Actually I met him before in one event in Xavierville I. Senator Defensor Santiago. What event was that?
45
Ms. Tiongson. It was an inauguration of the new court that was built. Senator Defensor Santiago. New what? Ms. Tiongson. Covered court. Senator Defensor Santiago. Ah, covered court. So you are sure that when he walked into your office, even before he introduced himself, you already recognized him as congressman? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, and then my other officers said that Councilor Banal is here, something like that. So parang Senator Defensor Santiago. That is how he introduced himself. Ms. Tiongson. No, that is not how he introduced himself. Senator Defensor Santiago. What did he say? Ms. Tiongson. He said that he is already a congressman. Senator Defensor Santiago. So there is no doubt in your mind that that was Congressman Banal you were talking to and not a possible person who was just using the congressmans name? Ms. Tiongson. No doubt, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. Good, that is already on record. Now, let me see. When he said, We will show you if you help us," did you not bother to ask who was us? Ms. Tiongson. He introduced himself as parang part of the secretariat or something. I did not ask anymore because I was so shocked with what he showed me. Parang ... Senator Defensor Santiago. He was part of ahe was saying, in effect, that there was a group behind him. Is that not so? Because he said, We will help you if you will help us. Ms. Tiongson. Something like that, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. Yes. Did you, during the course of your conversation, elicit from him the name of the group to which he belongs? You said, he might have been a member of some secretariat or something. Ms. Tiongson. I could not recall, Your Honor, but as far as I am concerned, he was parang elus Senator Defensor Santiago. Elusive. Is that the word? Ms. Tiongson. Parang he was not divulging a lot of things. Senator Defensor Santiago. All right. The mere fact that he was trying to cover the documents seems to support your answer now. Was that one of the bases? What are your bases for saying that he appeared to be elusive? Ms. Tiongson. He did not want to disclose anything other than what he showed me and what he asked. And then I was asking him to give me the documents so I can examine it further, but he did not give it to me. Senator Defensor Santiago. Did you ask him, Where did you get these documents? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, I did.
46
Senator Defensor Santiago. because you told him, I cannot help you, Sir, because these appear to be foreign currency documents, in effect. Is that what you said to him? Ms. Tiongson. I cannot help you, Sir. I am sorry we cannot disclose anything about any account, about any person or any client. Senator Defensor Santiago. Ah, was he asking about the foreign currency account? Can you remember any account at all? Ms. Tiongson. He did not particularly ask about any account, Your Honor, just certain figures like dollar signif it was really a dollar sign or something like that. Senator Defensor Santiago. So he was just making an overture and you frustrated his intentions. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Defensor Santiago. Very good of you as a bank official, you were obeying the law. But I am very interested about this approach of Congressman Banal and for that reason, Mr. President, I would like to request that a subpoena should be issued to Congressman Banal The Presiding Officer. Granted. Senator Defensor Santiago. since we already have a categorical identification by the witness. The Presiding Officer. Session suspended for Senator Sotto. May we have one question from Senator Arroyo, Mr. President, before the suspension? The Presiding Officer. May I just suspend the session for a minute. Senator Sotto. Okay. The trial was suspended at 4:44 p.m. At 5:18 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. The trial is resumed. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, earlier, before the suspension of the trial, the Presiding Officer mentioned that a subpoena be issued to Congressman Banal. There are members of the Court who would like to invite him first, instead of issuing a subpoena, considering that he is a Member of the House of Representatives. Perhaps, we can do that or we can take it up on Monday during the caucus. The Presiding Officer. What is the pleasure of the lady Senator from Iloilo who made the motion? Is the lady Senator from Iloilo still here? Senator Sotto. Well, at the moment, Mr. President. I will do my best to get in touch with her at the soonest possible time and ask if she is amenable to my proposition and the proposition of the other Members of the Court. The Presiding Officer. Well, anyway, you can move for a motion for reconsideration of the ruling given the fact that no one objected so it can be decided by the Body. Senator Sotto. Yes, I so move, Mr. President, that we invite instead. Senator Arroyo. Can I? Granted.
47
Senator Sotto. May we recognize Senator Arroyo. The Presiding Officer. Senator Arroyo has the floor. Senator Arroyo. Mr. President, I think, in respect to Congressman Banal, we should just invite him and let us not think of him, you know, as interparliamentary courtesy comes from the.... The Presiding Officer. Any objection to the motion to reconsider the previous motion of the lady Senator from Iloilo, which was approved by the Chair to just invite this member of the House of Representatives to appear here to explain his side? [Silence] Hearing none, the motion is approved. Senator Sotto. Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Arroyo. Just one question, Mr. President, may I? The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Senator Arroyo. I just want to find out. Is Congressman Banal a member of the House Committee on Justice? Representative Tupas. Your Honor, he is an ex-officio member of the Committee on Justice. Senator Arroyo. Why ex-officio? Representative Tupas. He is my Deputy Majority Leader, one of the deputy majority leaders and he is an ex-officio member of the justice committee of the House. Senator Arroyo. That is all I want to know. Thank you. Senator Sotto. May we recognize the birthday celebrator tomorrow, Mr. President, Senator Jinggoy Estrada. The Presiding Officer. Senator Jinggoy Estrada has the floor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Thank you, Mr. President. Isang katanungan lang kay Congressman Tupas. Mayroon po tayong bagong rebelasyon na si Congressman Banal daw ang unang nakakuha noong sinasabing dokumento ayon din sa testigo. Sino ba talaga ang nauna? Si Congressman Banal o iyong pag-abot noong maliit na babae kay Congressman Umali? Representative Tupas. Your Honor, ako, wala akong alam doon sa nangyari before noong February 2 ng gabi. Kasi noong nakuha ko iyong dokumento, noong pinakaunang nakita ko iyon, nakita ko po February 2 ng gabi. Kaya noong kinabukasan, in-attach na namin doon sa supplemental request for subpoena. Senator Ejercito Estrada. So, iyong ginamit ninyong in-attach dun sa supplemental request, iyon yung galing kay Congressman Umali? Representative Tupas. Yes po. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Hindi kay Congressman Banal? Representative Tupas. Galing po kay Congressman Umali binigay sa akin. Senator Ejercito Estrada. All right, thank you.
48
Madam Witness, noong December 12, 2011, do you recall how the withdrawals of the three accounts were made? Ms. Tiongson. I will try, Your Honor, to recall. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Will we wait for your answer? We can wait. Just try and recall how the three withdrawals were made for the three accounts. Ms. Tiongson. There are so many transactions in the branch. Normally, I would like to refer to a document so I can be sure, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Okay, sure. Ms. Tiongson. I do not have any document with me. Senator Ejercito Estrada. So, how was it paid? Was it withdrawn in cash, was it paid through managers check? Ms. Tiongson. It is via MC. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Through managers check, okay. Did you receive a call maybe from the depositor or from anybody that a large or a huge amount will be withdrawn on that day? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. From whom? Ms. Tiongson. From the depositor, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Si Chief Justice Corona mismo ang tumawag sa inyo? Ms. Tiongson. He sent ah... Let me recall, Your Honor. If I remember it correctly, Your Honor, he sent an authorization letter to his wife. Senator Ejercito Estrada. And then? Ms. Tiongson. So that his wife may get the managers check. Senator Ejercito Estrada. May withdraw? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. So, you only received a written authority coming from the depositor? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Ejercito Estrada. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. When the accounts were closed, in effect, you were required to allow the withdrawal of the funds from the custody of the bank, is it not? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And you did comply with the request to close the account, correct? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And was cash withdrawn to cover the total amount of the three accounts closed?
49
Ms. Tiongson. Managers check, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Managers check. So, do you have copies of those managers checks? Ms. Tiongson. We have the duplicate copies, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. You have a copy of those managers checks when they were encashed to draw the cash account.... Ms. Tiongson. They were not encashed, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Until today, the managers checks have not returned to the bank? Ms. Tiongson. I will have to check on that, Your Honor, if they were already negotiated. The Presiding Officer. They have not been negotiated? Ms. Tiongson. I am not sure, Your Honor. I will have to check. The Presiding Officer. Do you have duplicate copies of those managers checks? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. We have the original, under it a duplicate, yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Senator Sotto. Senator Pangilinan wishes to be recognized, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Pampanga is recognized. Senator Pangilinan. Yes, Mr. President. Just to connect the earlier testimony of the bank president and your testimony now, we had requested and it was ordered by the Court that the pertinent records of the bank with respect to the withdrawals and the transfers will be submitted to the Court. And therefore, we would just reiterate that, Mr. President, when I raised the questions earlier regarding these withdrawals. My question is: Were the managers checks redeposited in the bank, the managers checks that were withdrawn or that were executed on December 12? Ms. Tiongson. As I have said earlier, Sir, I will check first because I am not very sure if they were already negotiated. Senator Pangilinan. And when you say negotiated, you mean this was endorsed to another, possibly another bank? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. Or to another account? If it is another account, you would know? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. But you do not know. Ms. Tiongson. They were not deposited or negotiated to get another account in the bank, Your Honor. Senator Pangilinan. I see. Well, anyway, Mr. President, as was earlier ordered by the Presiding Officer that the related documents, including what the Presiding Officer said earlier with respect to these withdrawals and the transactions where it was transferred, will be submitted by the bank. For the record, Mr. President. Thank you.
50
Senator Sotto. Senator Drilon wishes to be recognized, Mr. President. The President Officer. The gentleman from Iloilo is recognized. Senator Drilon. Just a few questions, Mr. President. Your bank president earlier testified that there were two other accounts. Would you know if these accounts are with your branch? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. It is with your branch. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Okay. Do you have the documents on these two other accounts? Ms. Tiongson. It is with our president, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. It is with your president. You mean it is in the main office? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Not in the possession of the president now. You would not know? Ms. Tiongson. No, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Okay. But what is certain is that there are two additional accounts. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. All right. The Presiding Officer. Just to complete the information. The two accounts were accounts maintained in the Katipunan branch of the PSBank? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Senator Drilon. Now, so these documents pertaining to these accounts would be brought on the next hearing? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. All right. Now, the accounts mentioned are all in the name of Renato....is it Coronado Corona? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Now, you mentioned that the depositor, meaning the Chief Justice, sent an authorization for the closing of the three accounts on December 12, 2011 through his wife, the wife being Cristina Corona. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Now, did Cristina Corona have separate account with your bank? Ms. Tiongson. I do not know, Your Honor.
51
Senator Drilon. You do not know it could exist, it may not exist. Is that correct? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Would you please also check whether or not Cristina Corona would have accounts in Katipunan branch for the next hearing? Do we have to issue a subpoena or is it enough that this request is being made today? Ms. Tiongson. May I consult? Subpoena, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. You prefer a subpoena. In that case may I request that a subpoena be issued for the specific account of Cristina Corona who is the spouse of the Chief Justice. The Presiding Officer. Since the banks are here, bank officials, and since this is an impeachment case and there is an exception regarding revelation of bank deposits in an impeachment case, may we know whether you would voluntarily bring the records of those two other accounts to this Impeachment Court so that if you do not, then we will issue a subpoena? Ms. Tiongson. Sir, I prefer a subpoena for my protection. The Presiding Officer. May I request the kind president of the bank to answer the question? Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, we understand that this is an order from the Impeachment Court. We will comply on the basis of.... The Presiding Officer. Yes, the Chair confirms that it is an order of the Impeachment Court for you to bring the records pertaining to these two accounts mentioned by the gentleman from Iloilo. Mr. Garcia. We will do so, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. You will bring them in the next hearing of this case which will be on Monday, the next Monday from today at two oclock in the afternoon. Do you understand the order of the Court? Please say so for the record. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor, we understand the order of the Court. The Presiding Officer. All right. Senator Drilon. So, we will just await those records, Mr. President. And just to complete it, also the president of the bank mentioned that he has an idea where the P17 million under Account No. 089121023848, for P17 million, on December 12, 2011. He specifically said, I have an idea where the P17 million went but I do not want to speculate. So, maybe he can also bring the documents on this point so that we do not have to speculate. The Presiding Officer. What is the response of the president of the bank? Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, my response actually at that time was made in the context of an idea where from the time deposit it was paid out to. So, in that particular aspect, as far as the payment out of the time deposit through whatever facility or crediting, that was the context of my reply, Your Honor. But I did not want to categorically state it because I was not sure about it. The Presiding Officer. So? Mr. Garcia. I could remember that the time deposit was credited to one particular account that of the....
52
The Presiding Officer. Credited to one particular account in your bank? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. But I am not conclusively certain about it. I will verify our records and then report to the Court. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Does that satisfy you? Senator Drilon. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. I understand that there was a request from the gentleman from Iloilo to subpoena the accounts, if any, of Mrs. Corona? Senator Drilon. Well, the witness already said that.... Yes, there was a request, Your Honor, because of the answers of Ms. Tiongson that there were actually.... Did Ms. Tiongson say that there were accounts or she will check if there are accounts? Ms. Tiongson. Yes, I will check, Your Honor. Senator Drilon. Sorry? Ms. Tiongson. I will check. Senator Drilon. Yes. She will check. And if there are accounts, she will bring it here, the documents. Ms. Tiongson. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Senator Cayetano (P). Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Yes, the lady Senator from Taguig. Senator Cayetano (P). Thank you. Mr. President, I would just like to get guidance from His Honor as to how we are expected to treat the specific amount which wasI only have the last three digits, the 848 which was opened on June 29, 2011, closed on December 12, 2011 for P17 million because it is outside of the coverage of Article II. So I would just like to get direction on how we, as Senator-Judges, are expected to treat this because I cannot comprehend how this is covered by Article II and if we are now looking at this from money laundering standpoint. I would just like to get direction, and this also goes for the opening of other accounts and including the transfer of the account. I am definitely interested in the pursuit of justice but I still need to understand how it relates specifically to Article II because this is why this witness is being presented so, we do not get confused by the issues, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. I would suggest that we take this up in our caucus on Monday. Senator Cayetano (P). And I would be very happy too, but I take this up because we already have additional documents now which later on may go into a year-end that is beyond the scope of Article II which, for the record, ends, as far as I recall, on December 31, 2010. Thank you. Senator Drilon. If the Senate President will allow us, we would want to raise this question. The Presiding Officer. Proceed. Senator Drilon. The relevance is, that is why precisely we are trying to find out the managers check. There was a managers check issued to withdraw P17 million, where was this managers check
53
negotiated, if and the witness is not even certain as to whether it was negotiated or it is still outstanding, and, therefore, it becomes relevant because on December 31 of 2011, this could be part of the assets, of course, I am sorry.... I withdraw that, Mr. President. This could be part of the determination of the Court as to whether or not there are unreported assets. We do appreciate that we should discuss this in caucus, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Whatever values a person owns at a given date, then my understanding of the requirement for the preparation of Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Networth, all those must be included, whether they are in the form of cash, in the form of properties, in the form of real estate property, or in the form of securities or investments. Now, managers checks are actually cash. They have the nature of a cash asset of a taxpayer because you can negotiate them any time and you can convert them into cash. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader. Senator Sotto. Sen. Bongbong Marcos wishes to be recognized. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Ilocos Norte. Senator Marcos. This is just a suggestion, Mr. President. I note that we had provisionally issued a subpoena for Congressman Banal. I am in receipt of information that he is in fact in the building and, perhaps we could just invite him to come and explain. He can confront the witness and explain what exactly the events that transpired during his visit to the bank. It is just a suggestion, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Well, if he is in the building, this Chair has no objection if he will appear and clear the air about his past involvement in this matter. Senator Sotto. Before that, Mr. President, may we recognize Sen. Joker P. Arroyo before we decide The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Makati and Bicol is recognized. Senator Arroyo. Any witness, any person that we call has the right to prepare. So, we give Congressman Banal time to prepare because we cannot give a shotgun question here. So, I think, let the invitation stand as it is. I hope you will agree, Senator Marcos. Thank you. Senator Marcos. Very well, but certainly, because the issueI was just making the suggestion, so we do not have to confront the issue as to whether or not to subpoena a fellow member of Congress. Because if he would be amenable to come and testify, maybe not today, maybe on Monday on the strength of an invitation, then that problem will not have to be confronted by the Court. That was my thinking, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. I leave it to the distinguished gentleman from Congress if he is in the building, to voluntarily come. And if he wants to clear the air about his involvement so that it will not be left hanging to the speculation of the public, he may do so. Senator Arroyo. Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Makati and Bicol. Senator Arroyo. Quite frankly, this shotgun invitation, I mean, let us give him a chance. Let him come on Monday and thenrather than just because he is roaming around here and then suddenly his
54
name is mentionedI mean, we are not in the habit of anyone who is mentioned here and he is around then we will invite him to testify. I mean, it does not look nice. Thank you. Senator Sotto. Anyway, Mr. President, it was merely a suggestion I think on the side of Senator Marcos para makaiwas lamang sa mga problema. Anyway, it is up to him. The Presiding Officer. Well, anyway, to avoid any further discussion, let us invite him to come on Monday. Senator Sotto. No, objection, Mr. President. Senator Pangilinan wishes to be recognized. Senator Pangilinan. Two more quick questions, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Pampanga is recognized. Senator Pangilinan. Just two more follow-up quick questions to the witness. Madam Witness, you said that you are familiar with two more accounts but you would like to get the documents ano? And you have said that there have beenon December 12 there were withdrawals for three accounts ano, not of these two accounts? Would you know in these two other accounts whether there were withdrawals too, on December 12? Ms. Tiongson. May I refer to the document? Senator Pangilinan. Yes. Last December 12, 2011. Ms. Tiongson. Sir, there were two withdrawals on the accounts that were covered by the initial subpoena and the other withdrawal was one of the additional I think, if I may....I will have to check on that. Senator Pangilinan. So there were three withdrawals on December 12? Ms. Tiongson. I think so, Your Honor. I will check on it. Senator Pangilinan. Yes, my question isand we have already established that. For the two accounts that you say you do not have the records now and you will be bringing it on Monday, because you are the bank manager, would you know and therefore, if there were withdrawals on the same day, December 12 on these two other accounts, and therefore, would you know if there were five withdrawals for these peso accounts, or you are just familiar with three? Ms. Tiongson. I cannot say, I will have to check, Your Honor, to be sure. Senator Pangilinan. All right. Thank you. Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor, please, since we are prohibited by the rules of this Impeachment Court to make any objection to any manifestation or examination by a Member of this Honorable Court. I will just place on record our observation with respect to the documents sought to be produced. It will be noted that there is nothing mentioned aboutwith specific and concretely, Your Honor, about the accounts being mentioned. But apparently, the witness is being bulldozed to make an admission to the effect that there are accounts, there are deposits made although it is not mentioned. It was not specifically delineated nor particularized, Your Honor. We want to say of record with due apologies to this Court that this necessarily partakes of a fishing expedition.
55
The Presiding Officer. To be fair, Counsel, in the course of the testimony of the witness, and I think it was the president of the bank who revealed that there were other accounts. We did not fish for that information. It was the president of the bank who mentioned about the existence of, first, one account which he described into the record. And second, he said there are two other accounts but that he could not remember the details of these two accounts. It was not a fishing expedition, it was a part of the testimony of the bank president. Mr. Cuevas. There is no question, Your Honor, about the nature of the revelation made by the but our point of observation is that these are matters not alleged in the complaint neither it is part of the Impeachment Complaint, Your Honor, under Impeachment No. 2, Impeachment Article No. II. Because.... The Presiding Officer. We deem it covered under paragraph 2.3. Mr. Cuevas. 2.2 and 2.3, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. 2.2 and 2.3 of Article II. Mr. Cuevas. But allegedly, these are deposits made even after the filing of the complaint in this case, Your Honor. If I remember correctly, the complaint was filed in this case way back in December, 2010, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Mr. Cuevas. 2011, Your Honor. The questioningthe subject matter dealt with in the questioning of the Honorable Members of Court deal with accounts opened after this date and withdrawals made after this date also. So.... The Presiding Officer. These go into the issue of whether the SALN at the end of 2011 covered all the assets of the party making that SALN. Because if indeed, he had in his possession P1 billion on that date, on or before December 31, and he did not include that in his SALN, that means that there is a non-inclusion of an asset, is it not? Mr. Cuevas. But the acquisitions, together with the opening of the accounts mentioned and the withdrawals, were effected after the filing of the complaint, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Correct, correct. Well, we are discussing a point of practice in the bank. If I deposited an amount at the beginning of the year and then I withdrew it one month before the end of the year, and I hold the managers check, how do you characterize the managers check? Not an asset? A liability? What? Mr. Cuevas. But our point, Your Honor, in connectionapparently, these are evidence being presented, and our point is, it is not circumscribed neither does it fall within the ambit of the complaint, Your Honor. It is the right Senator Cayetano (P). Mr. President. Mr. Cuevas. the right of Chief Justice Corona not to be asked to explain nor to make any statement with respect to those that do not fall within the coverage of the information complaint. That is only our point, Your Honor. Senator Cayetano (P). Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. Just a minute, please. May I have my time to discuss the matter with the Defense Counsel.
56
Your Honor, I know a little bit of accounting and when you prepare your balance sheet at the end of the year which is actually the nature of a SALN, a personal balance sheet, whatever is the nature of the asset that you have, whether it is a bank deposit, cash on hand in real terms and actual cash including your real properties, you ought to include that in your SALN. Mr. Cuevas. May I continue here, Your Honor? The Presiding Officer. Yes, yes, you are free to discuss with the Chair. Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please, I am not questioning neither the Defense is questioning the production or the submission of any of these documents being referred to. What we are raising is a point which is very, very material insofar as the right to be informed of the nature of the charge and accusations against him on the part of the Respondent, an impeachable public officer. If we examine the complaint, Your Honor, the SALN dealt with or in question are only those pertaining until 2010. Therefore, any SALN after that is no longer within the coverage of the information. If this is a criminal case, Your Honor, certainly, evidence to that effect must be excluded even if it admitted. I am sorry, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. December 2010? Was the SALN alleged in Article II specifically referring to
Senator Cayetano (P). Mr. President, we have not filed 2011 yet, that was the point I was saying since I was standing up earlier. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you for the clarification. That is my point, Your Honor. First, it could not have been within the coverage of the complaint, for the reason that this complaint was filed 2011, Your Honor, and this acquisition depositing this amount, withdrawing it, are beyond the period covered in the impeachment complaint. Now, while it is true. The Presiding Officer. Well, my suggestion, Your Honor, so we can discuss this lengthilyat the proper time, when your turn to present your evidence in chief, you can traverse this and say, Well, these assets did not exist in the Year 2010 so that they could not have been included in the SALN of the Respondent in 2010. They arose only at the beginning of 2011 and in which case your position is proper. Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor, for the advice. But my point is a question of procedure and jurisdiction. If we are agreed that the information or the complaint in this case charges only matters taking place up within the period covered by the impeachment complaint, Your Honor, then any and all assets thereafter will certainly be irregular in the period. The Presiding Officer. My understanding of Article II of the Articles of Impeachment is that, it alleges nondisclosure of SALN for that year. Mr. Cuevas. Right, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And noninclusion of assets existing during that taxable year. Mr. Cuevas. Correct, Your Honor.
57
The Presiding Officer. All right. Mr. Cuevas. I am sorry. The Presiding Officer. So, at the end of that taxable period, the taxpayer or the public official is required to make a balance sheet for himself which is known as a Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth. If you study any balance sheet, that is actually what it is, a Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth of a corporation or an individual. So, my humble understanding is that in preparing any balance sheet, then all liabilities current during the year involved and all assets existing during the year involved and the difference between the liability and the totality of the assets at the end of the year involved, will be reflected in the SALN. Mr. Cuevas. With the due indulgence of this honorable Court, Your Honor, the Defense has not gone to the extent of questioning the admissibility of the evidence now being presented. We are raising a very specific issue, and that is any and all matters subsequent to the filing of the complaint, cannot be the subject matter of the impeachment complaint. That is our point, Your Honor. Although The Presiding Officer. Anyway you will have the time to traverse that when you present your evidence in chief. Mr. Cuevas. We will do that, Your Honor. Anyway we are not precluded from resorting to other available remedies in favor of the Chief Justice, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Yes.
Mr. Cuevas. We just place it on record because while these matters are being discussed through the questioning of the Members of this Court, we cannot object, Your Honor. That is our only point, to place on record our observation to the effect that these matters being dealt with now in the examination are no longer within the coverage of the complaint. That is our only point, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. If indeed any or those mentioned assets did not exist in the year concerned, and that they arose subsequently after December 31st, 2010 and you can show that that is so, the proper motions could be made at that point. Mr. Cuevas. I did so, Your Honor, and we have gone this far because the Court probably will notice that when the withdrawal of that amount, I think P17 million was made, it was already 2011. And therefore, how thatwhere that money came from, how it was disposed of and where was it brought, is already beyond the period mentioned. That is our only point, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Anyway, as I said, we will discuss when the time comes. Mr. Cuevas. Okay, thank you, Your Honor. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, we may excuse the witness if there is no other question that will be posed. We just like to askthe Court is asking for the logbook that was supposed to have been presented. The Presiding Officer. Where are the logbooks?
Senator Sotto. Senator Estrada will look into the logbook, Mr. President.
58
And then finally, also the original that was asked of the signature cards, original that can be compared asked of the PSBank president. The members of the Court are also asking, Mr. President, so that we may excuse the witnesses after. Mr. Puno. May I be allowed to address the Honorable Court. The Presiding Officer. Yes.
Mr. Puno. All the documents that have been directed by the Senate to be brought by PSBank are with us, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. What are those documents, to be specific?
Mr. Puno. The logbooks of those that have access to the vault in PSBank Katipunan Branch, the original signature card that was supposed to be compared with Annex A of the request for subpoena of the Prosecution, thepardon me, Your Honor, we have a written compliance which we are going to file. The Presiding Officer. Will you prepareyou prepare any inventory of the documents that you are presenting to this Court. Mr. Puno. We do have it with us. The Presiding Officer. Submit it formally for the record and guidance of this Court. Mr. Puno. We do have it already, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. May I recall the president of the bank to the witness stand if we are through with this witness? Senator Sotto. Yes, we may excuse Ms. Tiongson. The Presiding Officer. Because the Presiding Officer would like to clarify certain points. Mr. Garcia. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. You said and the witness, Ms. Tiongson, said that all the records of bank accounts of the Respondent Chief Justice were transfered to the head office Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. at a certain point when this impeachment case was filed or imminent to be filed, correct? Mr. Garcia. After it was filed, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. After. How long after it was filed? Mr. Garcia. On the day that we were advised that there was an inquiry about The Presiding Officer. When was that? Mr. Garcia. I believe it was January 31, Tuesday. The Presiding Officer. All right. January 31
59
Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. 31, Tuesday Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. of the current year. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. All right. Were these documents filed in a sealed envelope? How were they transferred from the Katipunan branch to the central office of PSBank? Mr. Garcia. Well, if I may recount, Your Honor, we got information from the branch, through supervision chain, that there was an inquiry made about the account and we met with the branch manager and the other officers and staff. I personally was there on that day. The Presiding Officer. Will you repeat what you said? Mr. Garcia. We immediately asked them to control the documents. The Presiding Officer. Who are they? Mr. Garcia. The branch officers. The Presiding Officer. Who are those branch officers that you asked? Mr. Garcia. Anabelle Tiongson andI cannot recall anymore the operations officer, Your Honor, but I could give you the details tomorrow. The Presiding Officer. No. Did you also instruct the branch manager and the two officercustodians of the documents placed in a steel cabinet to transfer those documents pertaining to the accounts of the Chief Justice Mr. Garcia. I did, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. to the central office? Mr. Garcia. I met with them that evening immediately and went through the details of the day. The Presiding Officer. You know the trouble with us, we ask you a question and you do not answer the question. Mr. Garcia. I am sorry, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. You are prolonging the proceeding. The question is very specific. I am trying to canalize my question in a very specific manner to be answered with a specific answer. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So answer my question. Mr. Garcia. I believe your question was, Did I instruct? Yes, I did, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. You did? Mr. Garcia. I did. I instructed
60
The Presiding Officer. And what happened when you instructed, they complied? Mr. Garcia. They complied, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. How did they comply? Mr. Garcia. They complied by turning it over the next day to senior officers that I instructed to personally go to the branch to control the documents and bring them to head office. The Presiding Officer. You said they, who are they? Mr. Garcia. The branch officers, Your Honor, including Ms. Tiongson. The Presiding Officer. The branch officersplural. Who are these branch officers? Mr. Garcia. I cannot recall the other officer, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. You know why I want to be specific to find out the people that are possible causes of the leak. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. I can provide that information that I can. The Presiding Officer. All right. They brought the documents to your office? Mr. Garcia. The senior officers brought it to my office, yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Who are these senior officers? Mr. Garcia. As mentioned by the branch manager, Mr. Ismael Reyes, I directed him to personally control the documents from the branch to head office. The Presiding Officer. You instructed the branch officer, Ms. Tiongson, to control the documents and to bring those documents to your office? Mr. Garcia. To turn over to our senior officers who physically brought it to Manila, to our head office, Sir. The Presiding Officer. We do not understand each other. Mr. Garcia. I am sorry, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So I will repeat. You instructed Ms. Tiongson to gather all the documents that you need to turn over these documents to you in your office? Mr. Garcia. I instructed them to gather all the documents, Your Honor, and. The Presiding Officer. For heavens sake. Who are them? Mr. Garcia. I am sorry, Your Honor. Anabelle Tiongson and the second officer of the branch. I cannot recall, Your Honor, right now. I will come back tomorrow or on the next hearing and give you that particular information because I am not. The Presiding Officer. All right. So your documents were brought to your office the following day? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor.
61
The Presiding Officer. Describe the way they were brought to your office? Mr. Garcia. They were brought to my office by the senior officer and I instructed, actually, that they be properly and more strictly controlled. The Presiding Officer. Were the documents loose or in a folder or bundled? Mr. Garcia. They were in a folder. The Presiding Officer. Will you please describe the documents as far as their appearance when they were handed to you? Mr. Garcia. They were in a folder and envelopes, Your Honor, and I instructed them to please. The Presiding Officer. How many folders were submitted to you? Mr. Garcia. My apologies, Your Honor. I cannot recall but I think there were two. The Presiding Officer. Or three? Mr. Garcia. I am sorry, Your Honor. I cannot recall. The Presiding Officer. Or four? Mr. Garcia. I really, I am sorry, Your Honor. I cannot recall. The Presiding Officer. It could also only be one? Mr. Garcia. It could be, Your Honor. But my mainmay I explain, Your Honor? My main concern was to control and secure the documents more stringently. The Presiding Officer. All right. Okay. Now, we are talking something. To control the documents? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. How did you control them? Mr. Garcia. We made sure that they were. The Presiding Officer. Who are we? Mr. Garcia. I mean, me and my team, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Who are your teams? Mr. Garcia. My executive vice president, my branch banking group head. We designated people who will now handle it. We made sure that it is controlled in a very secure place, more secure. Do not let other people know my instructions to them. The Presiding Officer. What is that very well secure place, was it a room, was it a vault? Mr. Garcia. A vault, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. A vault. What kind of a vault? Mr. Garcia. It is a vault in our head office with dual access and dual control.
62
The Presiding Officer. What do you mean by dual access and dual control? Mr. Garcia. Like the branch, Your Honor, no one can personally or singly access anything in that particular vault. They have to be two officers who will open the vault together. The Presiding Officer. In that particular case of these documents, did you read the documents piece by piece Mr. Garcia. No, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. before you put them in the vault? Mr. Garcia. No, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Who placed them in the vault? Mr. Garcia. The officers who were designated to control, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Who are they? Mr. Garcia. My apologies, Your Honor, I cannot recall but my instructions were to the senior officers. The Presiding Officer. Were you present when they placed it in the vault? Mr. Garcia. No, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. So, you do not know whether they placed it in the vault without reading them or whether they read them first before they placed it in the vault? Mr. Garcia. Well, my specific instructions were to seal them. The Presiding Officer. Yes, you gave them that instruction. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Sir. The Presiding Officer. But you do not know what they did with it, whether they obeyed you or disobeyed you. Mr. Garcia. I cannot say, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. You cannot vouch? Mr. Garcia. I cannot vouch, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. in the vault All right. You do not know also the exact time when they placed it
Mr. Garcia. No, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. from the time you gave instruction up to the time they actually placed it in the vault? Mr. Garcia. No, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And you do not know whether there were other people who handled those documents after you gave the instruction? Mr. Garcia. No, Your Honor.
63
The Presiding Officer. So, who are the people designated to perform the dual access and dual control? Mr. Garcia. I cannot recall right now, Your Honor. I would need to verify from the other senior officers to find out, because.... The Presiding Officer. I thought you wanted these to be very, very secure, and that in order to safeguard the integrity of those documents, you just left it to these people without seeing to it that your instructions were obeyed? Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, in our conduct in the bank, we normally give instructions to our folks and we do not see it through down to the last detail of lodgment in the vault. The Presiding Officer. Why? Mr. Garcia. I just wanted to secure these documents. The Presiding Officer. Because you consider all your employees as saints? Mr. Garcia. Well, that is....Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. That is the implicit assumption. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor, especially, because they were now being handled by more senior officers who are not in the branch. The Presiding Officer. Then how can you explain that there are now claims that some documents, almost a replica of documents in your bank, are in the hands of strangers? Mr. Garcia. We cannot explain that, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Unexplainable. Mr. Garcia. We cannot explain that, but.... The Presiding Officer. You cannot, in anyway, conceive that it would happen? Mr. Garcia. Based on what....We have to verify, Your Honor, and the annexed documents, there are discrepancies that we can see. The Presiding Officer. Correct. But those discrepancies are simply, as you described them, discrepancies. But the rest, removing the discrepancies are not discrepancies. They are authentic reproduction of the documents in your possession. Correct? Mr. Garcia. The information is authentic, Your Honor, but within the Annex A and the original, the way some of that information is indicated is different. The Presiding Officer. Correct. But only to the extent that they were indicated, but those same information would be in the document in the possession of the bank. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. How would anybody know those information, although they were not properly indicated according to your bank procedures in a document, be in the hands of other people? Mr. Garcia. I would have no idea, Your Honor.
64
The Presiding Officer. No explanation. Mr. Garcia. No explanation. The Presiding Officer. No possible explanation.
Mr. Garcia. I would not want....It will all be speculation, but I really have no idea. The Presiding Officer. It is not speculation. You admitted that there are authentic details that are found in your document and, yet, they were also found in the document. Mr. Garcia. The personal details are authentic, Your Honor. Most of the details are authentic up to a certain point, but there are differences, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Precisely, to the extent of the authentic details, those could not have been known to people if they had no access to your documents. Mr. Garcia. I think that if they had information about account numbers, then that would be.... The Presiding Officer. Who are they? Mr. Garcia. Anyone who had in that information, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. How would anybody....Can you explain to us how anybody would be able to gain an information of the number of digits of bank account numbers in your bank, unless they have access to the entire document? Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, this information is, many of the information with respect to bank accounts are common. For example, when you issue a check, your bank account number actually is written on the check; when you deposit checks into your accounts, the banks that received them will always indicate your bank account number at the back of the check and send it actually to the issuing bank for clearing because when the checks come backif there are checks that come backwe would know which account number to credit. The bank certifications, Your Honor, are issued to different offices, a visa for visa. There are also instances when we have many customers who use their accounts for receipt of payment and they let their clients know about the account numbers and then their clients deposit them. The Presiding Officer. All right. I will not prolong this point with respect to the number of the account. But the details outside the number of the accounts are those written in checks that are being issued against that account of a given number? Mr. Garcia. Your Honor, the documents do not show other details other than dates, account numbers and signatures of those that have processed them. The other information and the data are public informationthe address, some other details of the customers. They really are public. The Presiding Officer. I will direct to you a very specific and candid question. Could you, as president, reproduce a document containing all the details involving a specific deposit account? Mr. Garcia. Involving a specific account. The Presiding Officer. In your bank. Mr. Garcia. Details like account number, Your Honor?
65
The Presiding Officer. Account number, including the transactions and the operations in that account? Mr. Garcia. In this particular instance, there are no other information on the data. It is just account numbers, dates. There are no transactions or information; there is no amount indicated, so it could actually be done. The Presiding Officer. I read to you yesterday when I examined you about the account or the document attached to the supplemental request for a subpoena by the Prosecution. Can you offhand reproduce a document like that for any bank deposit account of a client from your memory? Mr. Garcia. Memory, no, they are not complete, Your Honor, because you need signatures of the depositor. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Now, after you received the documents and according to you the documents from the branch and you instructed officials to put it in a secured area, vault, do you know if there was any occasion when your officials, including you, opened that vault? Mr. Garcia. I am not aware right now, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. But is it possible that they opened those vaults at any given time between the time that they were brought to you up to the time that....? Mr. Garcia. It is possible, Your Honor, but you will need two officers actually to handle.... The Presiding Officer. Who are those two? Mr. Garcia. Those who had custody of the documents. The Presiding Officer. Who were those two that you designated to become the controllers of opening the vault? Mr. Garcia. I am sorry, Your Honor, but at this present time, I cannot really recall who was....I would need to get details and provide to you later. The Presiding Officer. You did not designate specific people or officials of the bank? Mr. Garcia. I designated my executive vice president and branch bank head to control them and make sure that.... The Presiding Officer. What are them control these.... Mr. Garcia. The documents, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. Okay. Control the documents. Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. And they, in turn, designated the people who would take care of the vault? Mr. Garcia. Yes, Your Honor. They may have controlled it themselves, I am not really certain. The Presiding Officer. But you do not know the person that they designated to control the vault? Mr. Garcia. No, Your Honor.
66
The Presiding Officer. All right. Thank you.
Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move that we suspend the trial for one minute. The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] There being none, the trial is suspended for one minute. The trial was suspended at 6:20 p.m. At 6:20 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. The trial is resumed. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, we may excuse the witness at the moment, and I am about to move for adjournment. But before that, there are certain important matters that I have to take up with the Court. The Presiding Officer. Witness is discharged in the meantime, subject to recall. Senator Sotto. Thank you. Mr. President, on February 9, 2012, the Presiding Officer issued subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum to the Clerk of Court and the Deputy Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court, directing them to bring the record or logbook of the raffle committee showing the assignment of the FASAP case and the letters of Atty. Estelito Mendoza addressed to the Clerk of Court dated September 13, 16, 20, and 22, also in connection with the FASAP case. On the same date, another subpoena duces tecum was also issued by the Presiding Officer, directing the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court en banc to bring various Supreme Court records in connection with the case of former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo in G.R. No. 199034, GMA TRO petition; in the case of former First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo in G.R. No. 199046, Mike Arroyo TRO petition. These subpoenas were delivered and received by the Supreme Court on February 10, 2012. Now, Mr. President, on February 15, 2012, the Clerk of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court, received a copy of a resolution of the Supreme Court dated 14 February 2012 which dealt with matters which are subject of these subpoenas issued by the Impeachment Court. In relation to the first subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum, all items requested from Items 2 to 5 were approved for release to the Impeachment Court, except for one item on the records or logbook of the raffle committee showing the assignment of the FASAP case. In relation to the subpoena duces tecum, the Supreme Court directed the Clerk of Court to provide the Impeachment Court only with the documents they deemed not confidential. Excluded in the list and deemed confidential were Items 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 15 of our subpoena. Now, Mr. President, to allow our colleagues time to go over the resolution of the Supreme Court dated February 14, 2012, I move that the matter be taken up in our caucus on Monday, February 20, 2012, at eleven oclock in the morning. The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] There being none, the resolution of the Supreme Court dated February 14, 2012 on the subpoenas issued by the Supreme Court shall be considered by this Court in our caucus scheduled on Monday, February 20, 2012.
67
Senator Sotto. Mr. President, sometime at noon yesterday, February 15, 2012, our Clerk of Court received two notices of partys oral depositions and depositions duces tecum. This morning, February 16, 2012, Chief Justice Corona, through Counsel, filed a Motion to Disallow the Oral Depositions and Depositions Duces Tecum. I move that the Presiding Officer rule on the motion. The Presiding Officer. May I know from the Prosecution what is the basis of your request for a deposition because there are requirements or conditions provided for in the Rules of Court as a basis for a deposition or interrogatories. Representative Tupas. Your Honor, may we request that Congressman Colmenares be recognized. The Presiding Officer. Yes. Representative Colmenares. Thank you, Your Honor. We consider the deposition of the two notaries public, Your Honor, only because there was an agreement or at least an instruction on the part of the Impeachment Court also, that as much as possible, hindi po pahabain ang aming witnesses. Ngayon po may notaryo lamang po doon sa SPA ni Ginang Arroyo na isinabmit sa Supreme Court. So as part ng preparasyon namin, deposition lamang po muna. Kasi kung mayroon man, simple lamang naman po ang gusto naming malaman. Totoo nga bang nag-notaryo si Ginang... The Presiding Officer. Hindi ba mas simple kung dadalhin ninyo rito at tanungin sila para matanong sila ng Depensa. Akala ko ba gusto nating ibunyag lahat ng pangyayari sa madla. Transparency ang palagi kong naririnig sa inyo. Representative Colmenares. Tama po kayo. The Presiding Officer. Ito pag pinayagan ko ito para bagang may itinatago. Representative Colmenares. Tama po kayo. The Presiding Officer. Kung walang sakit iyong tao na gusto ninyong tanungin at gawan ng affidavit o kaya nandito naman siya sa bansa at masu-subpoena, dapat ay humarap siya rito. Hindi ko papayagan ito. Representative Colmenares. Tama po. If your Honor please, if I may, we would like lamang, Your Honor, kasi puwede naman namin siyang i-subpoena. Ang tanong lamang po sa kaniya ay simple: Anong oras nag-notaryo si Ginang Arroyo. Ngayon kung simple lamang naman po ang sagot niya, hindi na siyang kailangang mag-testify po rito para umigsi ang witness natin. Ngayon po, puwede namang maging witness namin siya. Puwede namang kami po ang mag-interview sa kaniya at gawan ng affidavit. Pero in-open pa po nga namin sa deposition para naman ang Prosecution, kung nandoon sila, present mismo sa deposition instead na kami lamang ang nag-interview, at kung mag-agree na sila doon sa dinepose ng attorney na iyon, baka magstipulate na lamang po kami. The Presiding Officer. The motion is denied. Representative Colmenares. So, we will submit the witness, Your Honor. The Presiding Officer. This Court wants to hear the witnesses.
68
Senator Sotto. The Prosecution wishes to be recognized. The Presiding Officer. The Prosecution.
Representative Tupas. Your Honor, in connection with that manifestation from the honorable Senator from Ilocos Norte regarding Congressman Jorge Banal of the Third District of Quezon City. Your Honor, he is here inside the Session Hall and he wishes to explain. Because his name was mentioned by one of the witnesses, he is here to explain. The Presiding Officer. What is the pleasure of the Senate as an Impeachment Court? Senator Sotto. The majority of the Members of the Court think that it is too late in the day. May we have a one-minute suspension, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The trial is suspended. The trial was suspended at 6:28 p.m. At 6:30 p.m., the trial was resumed. The Presiding Officer. The trial is resumed. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, Representative Banal has volunteered to appear, and the majority of the Members of the Court would like to give him the opportunity to explain his side on what transpired earlier. Of course as agreed upon, because of the lateness of the hour, we can restrain ourselves or refrain from asking questions. We can do that on Monday but, at least, give the chance to a member of Congress to explain because his name was mentioned. The Presiding Officer. All right. Congressman Banal will please take the floor and explain. Representative Banal. Maraming salamat po, Mr. Senate President. Magandang gabi po sa inyong lahat. Ako po si Bolet Banal. Ako po ay representative ng ikatlong distrito ng lungsod Quezon. Nabanggit po ni Ms. Anabelle Tiongson na nagpunta ako sa bangko nila. At totoo po iyon, ako ay nagpunta roon noong Lunes, January 31 yata, dahil iyong sumunod na araw ay birthday ng anak ko, si Kiko. Anyway, pumunta lamang po ako roon para humingi ng tulong. Totoo po iyong sinabi niya na nagbabakasakali ako dahil hindi ko siya personally kilala. Siguro po, once or twice at the most na nakita ko siya sa mga community gathering dun sa bandang Xavierville. So, nagbabakasakali po ako roon. Ako po ay may tinanggap na legal size na photocopied na papel na mayroong signature card noong Lunes ng gabi. Ako po ay araw-araw na nandirito sa Secretariat. Hindi po ako abogado; hindi ako prosecutor, pero ang tungkulin ko sa Secretariat ay admin-finance. Araw-araw po ako nandudoon. So, noong gabi ng Lunes, pagkatapos ng duty namin dito, medyo nagkayayaan iyong ibang mga secretariat membersiguro mga apat kaminag-unwind kami rito sa may MOA. And when I got home, ang practice ko po ay ibinababa ko na iyong driver ko sa EDSA, kasi ang uwi niya ay bandang Congress pa. Mag-isa na lamang po akong umuwi. At pag-parada ko, pagpasok ko
69
po sa may driveway naminmeron kasing mga slat iyong gate komayroon doong naka-fold na papel. Sa St. Ignatius po ako nakatira, pagitan iyon ng White Plains at Blue Ridge. So, kinabukasan po, nakita ko nga, handwritten iyong 700K. Gusto ko pong i-verify talaga. Totoo po ito, hindi ko sinabihan si Jun Abaya, ang aming impeachment manager. Kanina po ay magkatabi kami roon, humihingi ako ng paumanhin sa kanya. Hindi ko po talaga siya sinabihan. Kasi ang instruction po talaga sa amin sa team, kapag mayroong anything ay idadaan sa impeachment manager; kung magku-comment ka sa media ay idadaan sa spokesperson. At ako po, ayoko ring magsalita. Dahil sa totoo lamang kaya ako nagbe-verify, ayokong magbigay ng maling impormasyon doon sa mga kasama ko. Iyon lamang po talaga iyong dahilan. So, totoo po iyon, tinatakpan ko nung ipinakita ko kay Ms. Anabelle Tiongson na ang ipinakita ko lamang iyong.... Kasi po ang talagang fear ko noon baka $700 lamang iyong.... So, the next day, I was hoping po na baka.... Bago po ako umalis palabaka hindi lamang nasabi ni Ms. Anabelleay nag-iwan pa ako ng business card ko. Isinulat ko pa po iyong cellphone number ko kasi iyong business card ko ay office number lamang ang nakalagay. I was hoping.... She was very firm but she was very polite. Sinabi niya sa akin na talagang hindi. And I did not also want her to do anything against her will. Ako ay nagbabakasali lamang na baka tumulong siya sa akin. Kasi totoo po iyong sinabi niya, sinabi ko na mayroon ding ibang tumutulong sa amin. Mayroon din pong ganoon. Kasi po, i-share ko na rin ngayon, mayroon din po kaming na-receive dati na tagabanda rin sa area na iyon at mayroon siyang nai-share na $300,000 na account pero sa kasamaangpalad, at hindi ko po siya mapilit. Ang instruction po sa akin ni Jun Abaya at that time ay proteksyunan siya. Kasi nga po, natatakot po sila na mag-reveal. Parang nagbigay lamang po sila ng lead. Ang totoo pa nga ho noon, nung nag-meet po kami nung unang tao na iyon, sa bahay pa ho ng tatay ko sa St. Ignatius kasi, apparently, she knows my father. And the document that she gave us at that time was just an anonymous letter, dinala po sa Committee on Justice ng Kongreso. So, vinerify ko po iyon. Ito, mga weeks before pa po ito noong January 31, a week or two before. So, iyon lang po ang kaunting background dun po sa sinabi ko na, Mr. Senate President, meron pong tumutulong din sa amin. Totoo po, kasi iyon po ang pinanggagalingan ko. Ako naman, humihingi din ako ng paumanhin sa mga kasama ko, wala po akong sinabihan sa kanila na mayroon po akong ganung alam, kasi nga po gusto ko munang i-verify kasi po baka mali naman po iyon, photocopy lang ho kasi siya. So, noon pong Huwebes po, noong nag-ano na ho sila ng subpoena, hindi ko na ho, parang nakahinga na lang po ako ng maluwag na siguro mayroon na po silang inilabas na ganun. Ako po ay.... At maski naman po iyong mga spokesperson, kahit po iyong impeachment manager, kahit po iyong lead Prosecutor, kahit si Manong Rudy na idol namin po sa Kongreso, wala po akong sinabihan kahit po sino. Wala po kaming sinabihan po. So, pasensiya na po kung naka-cause po ako ng any problems. I just wanted to help our team. And in hindsight, tingin ko baka nakasama pa ako sa team namin, Sir. Pasensiya na po. Salamat po. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we invite Representative Banal to come on Monday just in case there will be questions from the Members of the Court. Representative Banal. Yes, Mr. Majority Leader.
70
Senator Sotto. We thank the Prosecution panel for that.
May we ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make an announcement, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant at Arms, please make an announcement. The Sergeant-at-Arms. Please all rise. All persons are commanded to remain in their places until the Senate President and the Senators have left the Session Hall. Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may I remind the Members of the Court that there will be a caucus of the Court at 11:00 a.m. at the Office of the Senate President. At this point, I move to adjourn until two oclock in the afternoon of Monday, February 20, 2012. The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] There being none, this trial is hereby adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on Monday, February 20, 2012. The trial was adjourned at 6:37 p.m.

Feb 16 Senate Impeachment Court Record

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feb 16 Senate Impeachment Court Record

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

Republic of the Philippines

Record of the Senate

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

Ms. Tiongson. No, Sir. Mr. Cuevas. Or you do not know.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

Senator Legarda. the logbook. Thank you very much.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012