Read banker Clarissa Ocampo’s testimony
By Raïssa Robles
It was Clarissa Ocampo’s alluring perfume that prompted President Joseph Estrada to see her in person.
“Sobrang bango niya,” a presidential bodyguard told Estrada. This was what a senior banker recently told me, in turn quoting an eyewitness of that fateful event on the night of February 4, 2000.
Estrada’s encounter with Kissa turned out to be a fatal attraction for his presidency.
The poised 45-year-old banker became at that time the key witness of the prosecution. She electrified the public when she testified she sat “a foot away” from Estrada as he signed “Jose Velarde” on a signature card and other bank documents.
“When he signed Jose Velarde, I just couldn’t believe it, He did not sign his real name, so I decided not to authenticate the signature,” she said.
At one point, the money deposited in the Velarde account reached up to P3.2 billion pesos.
Ocampo said she got “very, very scared” upon realizing she was among the few people who could directly link Estrada to the Velarde account.
Seven years later, the anti-graft court Sandiganbayan would convict Estrada of the crime of plunder for, among others, the Jose Velarde account. The court also ordered the forfeiture in favor of the government of what was left in the Velarde account. Clarissa Ocampo was again the main, unflappable witness of the prosecution.
I am posting below the testimony of Clarissa Ocampo, who was then head of the Trust Department of Equitable-PCI Bank.
Ironically, her testimony was pushed by Senator Joker Arroyo who was then one of the House prosecutors. Ocampo was not even in the list of persons set to testify. And the subject of her testimony was not part of the impeachment complaint.
But Arroyo said she needed to testify on that day of December 22, 2000 to safeguard her personal safety.
Why am I posting Clarissa Ocampo’s testimony?
Because it’s an eerie echo of what’s happening today. Only, the roles are dramatically reversed especially for Joker Arroyo.
Reading the lengthy transcript of Ocampo’s testimony, I am struck by how mightily Joker Arroyo fought for her to be heard. And how he has totally taken the opposite position today.
However, the words he uttered then can be used by the prosecution today to argue for the admission of evidence.
Clarissa Ocampo’s testimony also shows that today’s verbal clashes between the prosecution and the defense are reminiscent of what took place 11 years ago during Estrada’s impeachment trial. In fact the prosecution seems to be going over practically the same grounds and meeting the same objections.
WARNING: This is a very lengthy post running the equivalent of over two dozen pages. I was debating with myself whether or not to simply run excerpts of it.
In the end, I decided not to because I’d like you to see for yourself how Estrada’s lawyers tried to block Clarissa Ocampo’s testimony every step of the way. How the private prosecutor Atty. Mario Bautista fought back.
And how House prosecutor Joker Arroyo demolished every argument put up by the defense. In fact the very same arguments he used to get Clarissa Ocampo to testify and for her testimony not to be stricken off the records could be used today by the House prosecutors in Chief Justice Corona’s impeachment trial.
Joker Arroyo argues for Clarissa Ocampo’s testimony:
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you, Your Honor.
Then nobody else. The Honorable Majority Leader? Nobody else would like to talk, to speak?
Before we go on suspension of the trial and for a caucus later on, it seems, that insofar as the Presiding Officer is concerned, he would take the second option under Rule 6, of Resolution No. 68 in view of the expressions of opinions and ideas on the part of the members of the Court.
But before we go on suspension and caucus, the Chair would just ask the following questions on the movant, to guide the members of the Court as well as the Presiding Officer:
The first question, Your Honor, is: Is this witness among those the prosecution had in mind and submitted to the preliminary conference?
REP. ARROYO. No, Mr. Chief Justice, we learned about it only about two days ago when people wanted to assuage the conscience.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Second question: Would his or her testimony be on the first article?
REP. ARROYO. It would be on the second article, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Meaning….
REP. ARROYO. The second part of the second article.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Meaning, we’ll have to receive evidence on the second article before we even complete the first article?
REP. ARROYO. That’s correct, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Did I get you correctly as having said that one of the objectives of the taking of the testimony of this witness is to preserve her testimony?
REP. ARROYO. That is one but the more principal one, Mr. Chief Justice, is the security.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is it. So it is, therefore, to perpetuate because of security?
REP. ARROYO. Security.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Did I also get you correctly, as having said, that the testimony of this witness may be admitted conditionally?
REP. ARROYO. That’s correct, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In what sense would you what is the reason for the statement that it should be received conditionally?
REP. ARROYO. If we had our way, we would rather have…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You should have your way so why should it be conditionally conditional admission?
REP. ARROYO. Then we would prefer that the witness testify and that the testimony of this witness should be admitted unconditionally, subject to whatever conditions, I mean, objections that the defense has. I just added the question of conditionality because to make some kind of an arrangement so that the defense will not object and still achieve our purpose and which is, that as I have said in my statement that the best guarantee, the best protection of this witness is if she already testifies because if she testifies then she has already testified. And that’s it.
Now, the question of the rearrangement, may I go back a little bit, Mr. Chief Justice, if I may be allowed. We had done that. In the case of Governor Singson, he has testified both on Article I and in Article II. Not only that. The cross-examination of Governor Singson, he has testified both on Article I and in Article II. Not only that. The cross-examination of Governor Singson has been postponed until his testimony in Article I and II is completed. That is disadvantageous to us, Mr. Chief Justice. In fact, Governor Singson has complained that they have the entire Christmas recess to prepare for Articles I and II which to cross-examine him. But we didn’t object because—well, to us, if it could help and finish the testimony, that’s fine with us. But here, what we are saying is, at some point, we will reach Article II. So what damage will it have if we present this witness just so that this witness is done with, and Mr. Chief Justice and members of the Court, please I beg your indulgence. We let 11 days passed. They will work on this witness. In fact, they have worked already on this witness that’s why I’m bold enough to say that they have talked to this witness. The defense has talked to this witness and the Chief Justice may ask the witness pointblank when she testifies. I’m not suggesting it but just in case there’s any doubt. Now, if they have worked on her before, what more in these 11 days?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The next question, still on conditionality. When you speak of conditionality, has it something to do with your plan to consider this as material or relevant but now only to be conditional because it has to be linked with other testimony later on?
REP. ARROYO. Oh, yes. Conditional admission because it will be linked to the other evidence.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, if that would be so, what particular article would be the subject matter of the testimony of the witness?
REP. ARROYO. Article II.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Article II.
REP. ARROYO. Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The next question would be that, would the prosecution be prepared to continue with the testimony of this witness until terminated and, therefore, we’ll have to cancel the earlier agreement that we shall have some sort of a recess on the 26, 27, 28 and 29?
REP. ARROYO. We would prefer that so that this witness is through we would prefer that because this witness is through and then we will banish her wherever she is.
X X X X X
Clarissa Ocampo’s testimony
REP. ARROYO. Slight correction. The examining counsel will be Mario Lusa Bautista and the assisting examining counsel is Alexander Poblador, both of whom have made their entry of appearance.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who was that … The name again?
REP. ARROYO. Alexander Poblador.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Alexander Poblador. He also entered his appearance?
REP. ARROYO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, there’s an entry of appearance for the two lawyers.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. With authority from the panel of prosecutors?
REP. ARROYO. That’s correct, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Has the oath been administered already?
THE SECRETARY. Not yet.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Administer the oath now.
THE SECRETARY. Please raise your right hand and answer me.
You, Clarissa Ocampo, do swear that the evidence you shall give in the case now pending between the Philippines and Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God.
(The witness nodded in the affirmative.)
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now take your seat, Madam Witness.
Atty. Bautista, you may now proceed to qualify your witness.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Judge … Atty. Flaminiano.
MR. FLAMINIANO. May we respectfully reserve our right to object to the continued appearance of private prosecutors in this case.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That remains on record.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Yes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That was clearly understood before that it is always without prejudice to your objection to the appearance of private prosecutors in this proceeding.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
MR. BAUTISTA. With your permission, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed.
MR. BAUTISTA. Good afternoon, Your Honors. This witness is being presented to prove that the President of the Republic of the Philippines, Joseph Ejercito Estrada, opened and maintained and still maintains accounts with Equitable PCI Bank under and using the name of Jose Velarde. May I proceed, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You were given permission to proceed already.
MR. BAUTISTA. Thank you.
Ms. Witness, can you give us your personal circumstances?
MS. OCAMPO. I am Clarissa Emerita Gray Ocampo, married, 45 years old. My office address is at the 15th Floor of Equitable PCI Bank, Makati Avenue, Makati City.
MR. BAUTISTA. How long have you been with Equitable PCI Bank?
MS. OCAMPO. I have been with the bank for nineteen years but I started off with the ex-PCI Bank.
MR. BAUTISTA. And Mrs. Ocampo, what is your present position at Equitable PCI Bank?
MS. OCAMPO. I am Senior Vice-President and Trust Officer of the bank. As Trust Officer, I am a member of the Trust Committee. I am a member of the Management Committee of the Bank. I am a member of the Asset, Liability Committee Core Group of the bank, and a member of the Retirement Committee of the bank.
MR. BAUTISTA. And since when have you been the Trust Officer of Equitable PCI Bank?
MS. OCAMPO. I assumed the OIC status in August of 1999 and on October 1, l999, I was appointed by the Board of Directors of Equitable PCI Bank to be the Trust Officer of the bank.
MR. BAUTISTA. Can you please tell us, Mrs. Ocampo, what are your basic duties as the Trust Officer of the bank?
MS. OCAMPO. Basically, as Trust Officer, I handle the administration, management and overall operations. I oversee the operations of the trust and fiduciary business including investment management arrangements of the bank.
MR. BAUTISTA. Do you remember where you were in the early evening of February 3, 2000?
MS. OCAMPO. On February 3, 2000 at about 6:00 o’clock, 6:30 p.m., I was at the Anvil Restaurant which is at the fifth floor of Equitable PCI Bank, Tower I.
MR. BAUTISTA. And what were you doing at the Anvil Restaurant at around 6:00 o’clock of February 3, year 2000?
MS. OCAMPO. I was attending a cocktail party in honor of our former Chairman George L. Go.
MR. BAUTISTA. And who were at this party, Mrs. Ocampo?
MS. OCAMPO. Senior Officers of the bank, from the head office and some guests, the senior officers ranking from assistant vice president and up.
MR. BAUTISTA. At this party did you get to meet a person by the name of Atty. Fernando Chua?
MS. OCAMPO. Yes, sir.
MR. BAUTISTA. How did you get to meet Atty. Fernando Chua?
MS. OCAMPO. Mr. Go called me and introduced me to Atty. Fernando Chua.
MR. BAUTISTA. And as introduced to you by Mr. Go, who is Atty. Fernando Chua?
MS. OCAMPO. Atty. Fernando Chua, according to Mr. Go represents a certain client of the bank who wants to lend his personal funds to a corporation and wants to use the bank for assistance.
MR. BAUTISTA. Was the sum of the loan mentioned?
MS. OCAMPO. Yes, sir.
MR. BAUTISTA. How much?
MS. OCAMPO. Five hundred million pesos.
MR. BAUTISTA. And the proposed borrower, was the name mentioned.
Defense tries to stop Ocampo’s testimony
MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, at this juncture we have to interpose a vigorous objection to these questions because they are not covered by any of the Articles of Impeachment. They are objected to for being immaterial and irrelevant, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What’s the response of counsel for the prosecution?
REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice, I think that has been ruled upon by the ..
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, I beg your pardon, Your Honor.
REP. ARROYO. I think, Mr. Chief Justice…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Now we have agreed already on who will be the examining counsel.
REP. ARROYO. Oh, no, I thought that the…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And the assisting examin¬ing counsel.
REP. ARROYO. I thought that it has something to do with the articles.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I think it should be the examining counsel who must respond pursuant to the agreement.
MR. BAUTISTA. I respectfully disagree, Your Honor. First of all, the evidence that we presented through Mrs. Ocampo as I said in the formal offer will show that the President and Jose Velarde are the same. The amounts that are involved in the accounts are very, very substantial, far more than the declaration of assets and liabilities which were submitted by the President. We submit, Your Honor, that by showing that the sums involved in these accounts are very large, that in itself is indicative that the President committed violations of the Anti Graft Law, he has ill gotten, unexplained wealth and that is covered by Article II of the complaint.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Flaminiano.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, the charge in Article II of the Articles of Impeachment reads as follows:
“President Joseph E. Estrada violated the Constitution and stands guilty of graft and corruption when he directly or indirectly requested or received for his personal benefit P/130 million out of the 200 million released by Secretary Benjamin Diokno of the Department of Budget and Management, allocated under Republic Act 7171 in violation of Section 3 C of R.A. 3019, as may be seen from the affidavit of Luis C. Singson, Provincial Governor of Ilocos Sur dated 25 September 2000, Annex “B” hereof.”
Now, the next paragraph reads:
“President Joseph E. Estrada violated the Constitution and stands guilty of graft and corruption when he participated directly in the real estate business through a family controlled corporation which constructed 36 townhouses in Vermont Park Executive Village, Antipolo City, as shown in the PCIJ in the article on President Estrada’s family and financial interest.”
“He also violated the Anti Graft Law he is sworn to uphold. He filed his Statement of Assets and Liabilities for the year 1999 stating therein that he and his wife and children have business interest in only three corporations. The President, by that sworn statement also committed perjury and the offense of unexplained wealth because records show that he and his wife and mistresses and their children have other interest in other companies outside of the three firms listed in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities, Annex “E” hereof.”
There is nothing in this charge under Article II of the Articles of Impeachment which mentions this so called “P/500 million” transaction, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Just for the guidance of Atty. Bautista …
MR. BAUTISTA. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the preliminary conference order on the issues agreed upon by the parties, the parties agreed that insofar as Article II of the Articles of Impeachment is concerned, the only issue is this: Whether on the basis of the facts alleged therein, the President could be guilty of graft and corruption. How would you be able to relate that kind of testimony to the agreement as to the issue involved?
MR. BAUTISTA. As I said, Your Honor, the complaint already alleges the ultimate facts constituting the offense. The statement here, “he also violated the Anti Graft Law he is sworn to uphold.” The fact that P/500 million will be presented in evidence today as belonging to the President among other large sums as I earlier mentioned
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The question of the Presiding Officer is whether or not that kind of evidence that you seek to introduce now would really relate to what the parties had agreed as the issue under Article II, and I repeat: Whether on the basis of the facts alleged therein, the President could be guilty of graft and corruption.
MR. BAUTISTA. Most definitely, Your Honor.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Flaminiano.
MR. FLAMINIANO. There is an allegation that there was a transaction involving P/500 million. Now, there is no allegation of an ultimate fact regarding this P/500 million, Your Honor. Even if we read the Articles of Impeachment several times as we have done before, we cannot find any specific allegation that will support the conclusion that this P/500 million is part of what has been alleged in the Articles of Impeachment. It speaks of P/500 million in cash. Whereas, in these Articles of Impeachment, Your Honor, the allegation is that the President, his wife and mistresses have other assets in other companies outside of the three firms listed in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.
That, definitely, Your Honor, is outside the scope of these allegations in these Articles of Impeachment.
MR. BAUTISTA. Your Honor please, it is settled that allegations, which are evidentiary in nature need not be alleged as ultimate facts in the complaint.
MR. FLAMINIANO. In the …
MR. BAUTISTA. In the matter of 500 million being owned by the President is not an ultimate fact, it is an evidentiary fact which will tend to prove that the President violated the Anti Graft Law. The ultimate fact that is material is the one I just read. He also violated the Anti Graft Law.
How did he violate the Anti Graft Law, Mrs. Ocampo will tell us.
MR. FLAMINIANO. If your Honor please, the allegation that the President violated the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act is a conclusion of law, it is not a statement of an ultimate fact.
MR. BAUTISTA. I disagree, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would rule that while it may be a conclusion of law, it is precisely a conclusion which could be developed only out of proof by facts. But the only issue really is how could you relate that to the ultimate facts alleged under Article II.
Unless you can satisfy the mind of the Presiding Officer on a particular relation between the ultimate facts and what you claim to be evidentiary on the basis of what the parties had agreed as the sole issue under Article II, then I don’t think the Presiding Officer may be able to clearly clarify its own position on the matter. In short, show to the Court the relationship …
MR. BAUTISTA. Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … by stating by showing exactly facts which we may be able to elicit from the witness, if at all, it has some kind of materiality to the issue agreed upon after the preliminary conference and during, as a matter of fact, that conference.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, may I kindly point out that, apparently, the private prosecutor was not aware of what has been agreed upon previously. He might be completely unaware of the parameters of what has been agreed upon in order to expedite the trial of these cases where the issues have been specifically delimited in the pre trial conferences, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. One simple question in relation to that. Is the examining was the examining prosecutor present during the preliminary conference?
MR. BAUTISTA. Your Honor please, before yesterday I was a passive spectator to this. I haven’t had sleep for 24 hours. I definitely have no information or knowledge of what was agreed upon.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Of what has been agreed upon …
MR. BAUTISTA. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … during preliminary conference.
MR. BAUTISTA. Yes. And …
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would you need time to confer with the panel of prosecutors? Because, indeed, parties should be bound by what they have agreed upon unless you could really justify how you would proceed on this witness to establish by evidence its relationship to the issue agreed upon.
MR. BAUTISTA. We will try to prove, Your Honor, through the witness that the President had accumulated unexplained wealth and this is indicated with the amounts in the accounts, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But there had been the defense had read into the record the allegations precisely under Article II. So, if were you aware of the allegations under Article II?
MR. BAUTISTA. Are you referring to the allegations on page 5?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the allegations of ultimate facts under Article II…
MR. BAUTISTA. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … so you could be properly guided.
MR. BAUTISTA. Yes, Your Honor.
Clarissa Ocampo resumes testifying
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now proceed, and let’s see how you would be able to make the connection.
MR. BAUTISTA. Thank you, Your Honor.
Mrs. Witness, who was Atty. Fernando Chua as introduced to you by Mr. Go?
MS. OCAMPO. Atty. Fernando Chua, according to Mr. Go, represents a certain principal or client of the bank who wants to lend to a corporation, using his personal funds.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, …
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes?
MR. FLAMINIANO. We will have to move to strike out the answer of the witness.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. On what ground?
MR. FLAMINIANO. On the ground, in the first place that it is hearsay and that the answers sought to be elicited are not covered by any of the paragraphs of the Second Article of Impeachment.
If Your Honor please, the private prosecutor adverted to the fact that he wants to prove that the President accu¬mulated unexplained wealth. That is what I gathered from his statement just a while ago. But the allegation is this, Your Honor.
The President by that sworn statement also committed perjury and the offense of unexplained wealth because this is the point, Your Honor because records show that he and his wife and mistresses and their children have other assets in other companies outside of the three firms listed in his Statement of Assets and Liabilities.
Those are the only assets …
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That had been read into the records already.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Yes, Your Honor. That is why the tendency of the question now is to elicit answers that will not be evidentiary of what has been alleged in the Articles of Impeachment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There should be some kind of evidentiary value but it is the manner of presenting it.
MR. BAUTISTA. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The counsel should do it in such a way that he will be able to link it if he wants to. Unless you will be able to establish that linkage, the Chair will have to sustain the objection.
MR. BAUTISTA. Your Honor please, if we will be allowed to proceed, we will establish the linkage.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Nobody is preventing you from proceeding but do it in such a way that you will be able to avoid objections.
MR. BAUTISTA. Your Honor, the objection was hearsay. I think it is baseless.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, you want the Chair now to make a ruling on that?
MR. BAUTISTA. The fact that witness heard …
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will have to sustain. It is hearsay, but you can do something about it.
MR. BAUTISTA. Your Honor, it is independently relevant because the witness is merely testifying to what was told to her …
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If it is only offered, there¬fore, as an independently relevant statement, the answer may remain but that should not be taken as evidence and proof.
MR. BAUTISTA. We agree, Your Honor. Thank you.
And, Mrs. Ocampo, did Mr. Go identify the borrower of the amount of five hundred million pesos?
MR. FLAMINIANO. We will have to maintain the same objection for being immaterial and irrelevant, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection overruled.
MR. BAUTISTA. Thank you, Your Honor.
MS. OCAMPO. Mr. Go mentioned that the borrower is Wellex Group, Incorporated. Mr. Chua then followed through by saying that it is Wellex Group because the principal is very close to Mr. Gatchalian and wants to help him.
MR. FLAMINIANO. We will have to move to strike out, Mr. Chief Justice, the answer of the witness…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the basis?
Defense calls Ocampo’s testimony “hearsay”
MR. FLAMINIANO. On the ground that it calls for hear¬say evidence, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. As it calls for hearsay evidence, not that it was hearsay.
MR. FLAMINIANO. It is hearsay, Your Honor, actually.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Overruled.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Part of the narration of the witness.
MR. BAUTISTA. Thank you, Your Honor.
And did Atty. Fernando Chua, Mrs. Ocampo, advise you on when this loan transaction was supposed to be completed?
MS. OCAMPO. That we met on February 3, 2000, he mentioned that the loan five hundred million should be released on or before 12 noon the next day, February 4, 2000.
MR. BAUTISTA. What instructions, if any, did Mr. Go give you with respect to the proposed loan transaction of the principal of Attorney Chua?
MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, we have to object again on the ground that it does not have a tendency to connect the testimony of the witness to any of the paragraphs of Article II of the Articles of Impeachment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What’s the comment of the presenting counsel?
MR. BAUTISTA. It’s independently relevant, Your Honor, based on the same ruling of the Chair.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Just to avoid further objection later on, would you try to give us an idea how it would become relevant or material?
MR. BAUTISTA. Because the documents that will be…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For this purpose, can we require the parties to approach the bench?
Attorney Mendoza and who else for the defense?
The session is suspended for two minutes.
THE SESSION WAS SUSPENDED AT 5:57 P.M.
THE SESSION WAS RESUMED AT 6:10 P.M.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The session is now resumed.
Is there a pending question, Atty. Bautista, or a pending objection?
MR. BAUTISTA. May we proceed, Your Honor, on another point?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed. Go direct to the point.
MR. BAUTISTA. Yes, Your Honor.
Mrs. Ocampo, as Trust Officer of the PCI, of the Equitable PCI Bank, are you aware of an account, a trust account in the name of Jose Velarde?
MS. OCAMPO. Yes.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, we have to object to the question for lack of basis and for being immaterial and irrelevant. It is not alleged… it has no tendency to prove any of the allegations in Article II of the Articles of Impeachment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yesterday, the Court opened the sealed envelope containing that particular account. So, as to the first basis, overruled; as to the second basis, may be preliminary.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
MR. BAUTISTA. Thank you, Your Honor.
MS. OCAMPO. Yes, I’m aware of an account in the name of Jose Velarde.
MR. BAUTISTA. Can you explain to us in brief the circumstances on how you came to know about the account of Jose Velarde?
MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, I’m sorry, I have to object again, unless they present the proper basis.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Lay the basis.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Because there is no connection between Jose Velarde and the respondent in this case. They have not established that connection, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. During the… when the parties were called to approach the bench, among the agreement was for you to lay the basis and to go direct to the point.
MR. BAUTISTA. This trust account, Mrs. Ocampo, is this covered by any documents?
MR. FLAMINIANO. Leading, Your Honor.
MR. BAUTISTA. Preliminary, Your Honor.
MR. FLAMINIANO. We have made an objection on the ground that there is no connection between Jose Velarde and the respondent, and Jose Velarde has never been mentioned.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then the witness may answer on this issue, on this particular issue. You may proceed and, as I said, the Chair would repeat, go direct to the point.
MR. BAUTISTA. Yes, Your Honor.
MS. OCAMPO. There are several documents with the signature of Jose Velarde. That’s the investment management agreement—the investment management agreement, the directional letter to invest in Wellex, Incorporated, the investment guidelines, and the signature card. This is for the Trust Department.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, sir.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
MR. FLAMINIANO. The witness mentioned several documents. The agreement has been for the prosecution to furnish us with copies of all the documents that we have been premarked. We have not been furnished with any copies of these documents.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. The agreement must be strictly observed, Mr. Counsel.
MR. FLAMINIANO. There is a violation of the agreement.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We suspend the proceedings for five minutes to secure the copies of the documents to be given to the defense.
MR. BAUTISTA. Yes, Your Honor. I apologize for not complying with the agreement. As I said earlier, I beg the indulgence of this Court. These documents were presented to us only last night.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You have all the time to produce the documents then.
MR. BAUTISTA. Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Again—again, the Presiding Officer will insist on proper observance of your own agreement. And the next time, the Chair will no longer accept an apology.
Suspended for five minutes.
THE TRIAL WAS SUSPENDED AT 6:15 P.M.
THE TRIAL WAS RESUMED AT 6:28 P.M.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The trial is resumed.
Are the parties ready now with the documents? Atty. Bautista.
Atty. Flaminiano.
MR. FLAMINIANO. There are voluminous documents, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. How voluminous, Atty. Bautista. How many documents do you have for
marking, so we will know how long would be the suspension.
MR. BAUTISTA. We have six basic documents, Your Honor, but there are several copies of each document which…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, how much time would you need?
MR. BAUTISTA. Maybe at the most, ten more minutes, Your Honor please.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty minutes.
THE TRIAL WAS SUSPENDED AT 6:29 P.M.
THE TRIAL WAS RESUMED AT 6:40 PM.
THE DEPUTY SECRETARY (MS. EMMA LIRIO-REYES). Please all rise.
Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. and Senate President Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The trial is resumed. Atty. Bautista.
MR. BAUTISTA. With your permission, Your Honor. The documents…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Have you finished the marking of the exhibits?
MR. BAUTISTA. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And distributed copies of the marked exhibits to the defense counsel and to all the members of the Impeachment Court?
MR. BAUTISTA. Yes, Your Honor.
May I proceed, Your Honor.
Defense argues over the markings of documents
MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, we have not received, sir, copies of the documents that have been marked.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There you are.
MR. BAUTISTA. I’m sorry.
MR. FLAMINIANO. We have not received them; we have to read those documents.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Furnish copies of the documents. I thought the defense have been given.
You compare that with the…
MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, sir, may I call the attention of the Court that the markings were apparently done by the private prosecutors themselves. We do not see any initial of the Clerk of Court who is the Secretary of the Impeachment Court.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is that true? Private Prosecutor, you did the marking yourself?
MR. FLAMINIANO. The private prosecutors did the marking themselves, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the answer of the private prosecutor?
MR. BAUTISTA. Your Honor, please. It was the Clerk of this Honorable Court which marked one set and it is duly signed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who marked the exhibits?
MR. BAUTISTA. Atty. Yap, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, it was marked by an officer of the…
MR. FLAMINIANO. The copies that were given to us, Your Honor, do not bear any initial of either Atty. Yap or Atty. Barbo.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Yap, would you kindly go over the exhibits in the possession of the defense to find out whether indeed you have not affixed your signature thereon.
MR. YAP. May I… the Honorable Court.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Pardon.
MR. YAP. Your Honor, it appears that the copy that was given to the defense panel do not have my signature because what I only affixed, Your Honor, was only one copy.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Which copy?
MR. YAP. The copy which the private prosecutor is now…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. When you say a copy, you mean one page?
MR. YAP. One set of all the exhibits.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. One set of the documents.
MR. YAP. Because I could not affix my signature in all of these xerox copies, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The defense would be entitled to receive the copies of the documents, as marked by the Officer of the Court, to avoid any possibility of tampering or whatever. And at least in the course of the cross-examination, the proper exhibit number may be made the basis.
Do it again. And I hope that this should not be repeated the next occasion. Even for the members of the Tribunal, what should be given to the members of the Tribunal would be copies of the documents duly marked by an Officer of the Court, initialed by such officer.
MR. HOFILEÑA. Honorable Justice, if I may.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you the assisting counsel?
MR. HOFILEÑA. Yes, Your Honor. I am Atty. Jaime Hofileña, I’m the assisting…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What was mentioned before was another name. Or is he the one? The one mentioned on the record as assisting is a certain Atty. Poblador. I’m sorry, the Court cannot recognize any other one not announced earlier as the assisting counsel, again for the purpose of a very orderly proceeding.
MR. POBLADOR. I’m Atty. Alexander Poblador, Your Honors. I have one set of the exhibits duly marked and initialed by the Clerk of Court. Following the instructions of this Honorable Court, we will now have this particular set photocopied.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Give these copies to the defense.
Atty. Flaminiano, make of record your receipt of the documents or these are the documents?
MR. FLAMINIANO. No, Your Honor, the documents that have been given to us are xerox copies and without the initials of the Clerk of Court.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. And some members of the Tribunal are even complaining about the nature of the documents given them.
SEN. OSMEÑA (J.). Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Honorable Senator Judge, Osmeña.
SEN. OSMEÑA (J.). Mr. Chief Justice, just to manifest that as far as I know, my copy is not initialed, neither is the copy of Senator Judge Teresa Oreta or neither is Senator Judge Honasan or neither are those of Senator Judge Ople or Senator Judge Tatad.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. May I request Attorney Yap to—approach the bench and to see the copies also furnished the Presiding Justice if these copies have been initialed by him.
Would you please make of record your answer to the query of the Presiding Justice.
MR. YAP. Your Honor, the copies which I have verified are not copies which I initialed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. See. Even the documents given to the Presiding Justice are not the ones marked.
MR. POBLADOR. Your Honors, I confirm what the Clerk of Court said that he marked and initialed only one set following…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is why were we given copies of documents which were not initialed? Unless, these are not initialed, they do not appear to be official documents of the Court.
MR. POBLADOR. Yes, Your Honor, following the instructions with the Court, we had that very set initialed and marked by the Clerk of Court, photocopied again.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Photocopy again the initialed documents.
MR. POBLADOR. Yes, Your Honors.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. How much time will you need for that purpose?
MR. POBLADOR. Twenty minutes, Your Honor.
Again, may we request…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Make a very good estimate so we will not be wasting our time.
MR. POBLADOR. Twenty minutes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Make it 25.
Suspended for 25 again.
THE TRIAL WAS SUSPENDED AT 6:49 P.M.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Attorney Yap, retrieve the documents which were earlier distributed which were not official.
Excuse me, the witness had been sitting there for quite a time. Perhaps she would like to answer to some personal liquidity problem or whatever. Let somebody accompany the witness and perhaps she could take a cup of coffee too.
MS. OCAMPO. Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But the witness is advised not to talk to anyone…
THE TRIAL WAS RESUMED AT 7:12 P.M.
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS. Please all rise. The Honorable Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Chief Justice, and the Honorable Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., Senate President.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Trial is now resumed.
Atty. Bautista.
MR. BAUTISTA. This time I believe we have sent copies of the documents duly marked to the …
MR. FLAMINIANO. MR. Chief Justice, sir…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Atty. Flaminiano.
MR. FLAMINIANO. I should like to raise another point. Our practice before this Impeachment Court has been for the parties to produce xerox copies which can be compared against originals. There are no originals in these documents.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Where are the originals?
MR. BAUTISTA. I have a full set of the originals here with me, Your Honor.
MR. FLAMINIANO. May we know whether these original documents are the subject of a subpoena duces tecum upon request by any interested party and upon the explicit approval of this Impeachment Body.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Bautista, you may answer.
MR. BAUTISTA. No, Your Honor. These are being presented as prosecution evidence.
MR. FLAMINIANO. If Your Honors please, these are bank documents. They cannot just be spirited out of a bank. That is a basic and fundamental policy of banks. These are covered by rules on confidentiality of bank records, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a statement by counsel Bautista that these are evidence, pieces of evidence for the prosecution.
MR. BAUTISTA. Yes, Your honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And voluntarily produced by the prosecution?
MR. BAUTISTA. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. With the permission of the Bank?
MR. BAUTISTA. Definitely, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And the Bank will have to take the full responsibility under Republic Act 1405?
MR. BAUTISTA. Yes, Your Honor, and may I please add that the defense in representation of the President who claims he is not the owner of the acccount has no personality to raise any objections on that law.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Can you state for the Court whether this particular account would be covered by the prohibition under Section 2 of RA 1405 or excepted therefrom?
MR. BAUTISTA. Your Honor, we submit that it does not fall under that for two reasons.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Why?
MR. BAUTISTA. Number one, it is not a bank deposit, Your Honor. These are trust accounts. And number two, Your Honor, these are being presented in an impeachment trial. So, we respectfully submit that these documents are exempted from the Secrecy Law.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator Judge Enrile.
Senator-Judge Enrile steps in
SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, may I know whether if I heard the counsel correctly. He said that these documents have nothing to do with the President. They have something to do with a certain “Jose Velarde.”
If that is the case, then what would be the materiality of this document in this proceeding?
Second, is it the position now of the prosecution that in an impeachment trial, any bank account could be opened even if the person who owns the bank account is not under impeachment? Or, does the exception of 1405 apply only to a bank account proven to be owned or held by the person under impeachment?
MR. BAUTISTA. If Your Honors please.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There are three questions asked. Atty. Bautista will have to answer.
MR. BAUTISTA. Yes. First, we earlier manifested and we are still trying to prove that Jose Velarde and President Joseph Ejercito Estrada are one and the same person.
SEN. ENRILE. But we do not have that proof yet in the as far as I know, we do not have that proof in this Court.
MR. BAUTISTA. This is it, Your Honor. This is it. I have it in my hands. And if I will be permitted to proceed, I will be able to prove it in a few minutes.
SEN. ENRILE. I submit to the Chair.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, sir, we were not aware that the private prosecutor has in his possession originals of these documents. We were not shown the originals of the documents so we could have compared it with the xerox copies that were given to us.
MR. BAUTISTA. We can do that right now, Your Honor.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Well, we have lost a lot of time on these documents, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Indeed, we really lost a lot of time because of failure to observe precisely what had been agreed upon. But, if you have the documents now, if you have the original documents now, why don’t you come closer to the defense for the latter to make the comparison everytime that you would refer to an original of a document.
MR. FLAMINIANO. The prosecution sought suspension for several minutes. May we also move for a suspension, Your Honor, so we can go over the originals?
MR. BAUTISTA. Your Honor, please.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Cannot the two of you use the same microphone and at the time that you ask a question, the other party can refer to the original?
MR. BAUTISTA. I don’t mind, Your Honor.
MR. FLAMINIANO. May we just request that my co counsels be also asked to examine the documents.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yeah. Considering that you are now together, one to compare it with the original, the witness should not immediately answer the question until a comparison has been made.
We are allowing this to save time and that would probably be the first time where both defense and prosecution counsel will be together.
(At this juncture, the prosecution counsels are seen comparing the original documents with the xerox
copied documents in the possession of the defense counsels.)
SEN. CAYETANO. Mr. Chief Justice
(The counsels for prosecution and the defense are examining the documents.)
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Honorable Senator Judge Cayetano.
SEN. CAYETANO. I wish the counsel for prosecution would be listening. If I recall what the Chief Justice directed is, everytime he presents a xerox copy of the document to the witness, the other guy, his co counsel, can go to the can present the original to the defense because, as now, they are examining the originals of several exhibits. It will take more than half an hour to do that.
So, I were correct in my interpretation of the Chief Justice …
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. They have started already comparing the original with the xerox and I think they can finish it soon enough and it might even be shorter than what was proposed earlier.
SEN. CAYETANO. Thank you.
(The counsels for the prosecution and the defense are examining the documents.)
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Session is resumed.
Defense still argues over the markings
MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, sir, we noticed that the signature cards the originals of the documents that were marked all the documents that are sought to be presented to this witness, the originals thereof have not been marked in evidence.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What should have been marked?
MR. FLAMINIANO. They marked only the xerox copies.
REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice, …
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Prosecutor Arroyo.
REP. ARROYO. Since I have supervision and control over this particular incident, I would like, with the permission of the Chief Justice, to answer the defense.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may.
REP. ARROYO. Now, this has never been done in the past. We can see now a pattern where the defense keeps on delaying and delaying. Any little objection, they would pose so that the proceedings would be delayed.
Now, we have never done this in the past. This time they would want to change the procedure and now would now ask that the originals be marked and deface the origi¬nals.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The procedure had been to mark the original and to produce copies thereof, as a matter of fact.
MR. FLAMINIANO. That was the procedure.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So all along we thought that the original documents produced by the witness were marked.
REP. ARROYO. No, no, the originals would be defaced, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Pardon?
REP. ARROYO. The originals would be defaced if we start marking them.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yesterday, as a matter of fact, the parties were required to initial original documents.
REP. ARROYO. But these documents are bank documents, Your Honor. These are the originals of an existing five hundred million contract and we cannot tinker with that.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be no tampering of the document because it will be with the permission of the Court. The same procedure may be made but in this particu¬lar case since the documents are here anyway and you have copies the other party would have copies, I think the examination may continue but without prejudice to the mark¬ing of the originals.
REP. ARROYO. We submit, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the order of the Court because that has been the procedure. Thereafter, the origi¬nal must be retained with the Office of the Secretary of the Senate in a sealed envelope with the signatures of the representatives of the prosecution and the defense who are duly authorized to do that, to initial the same across the seal. And also, the Secretary shall initial and the witness too shall initial the sealed envelope.
MR. BAUTISTA. May I proceed, Your Honor.
MR. FLAMINIANO. We have not finished examining the purported originals and I would suggest, Your Honor, that we do not want to appear to be obstructing the orderly procedure in this case. We were not the cause of the delay. We are just invoking a basic right.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, both parties have committed delays.
MR. BAUTISTA. I apologize for that, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The apology is accepted but as earlier manifested, no apology next time will be accepted…
MR. BAUTISTA. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … unless you truly, fully comply with the agreement.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, sir, is it our understanding that the prosecutors should already mark the originals?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That would be marked later.
MR. BAUTISTA. Perhaps in the course …
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. After the for purposes of comparison, the originals should be marked in accordance with what had been marked also, meaning, what had been reflected already in the xerox copies as marked will be the same marking for the original to be initialed by the representatives of the prosecution and the defense, to be placed inside the envelope with the representatives of the parties and the Secretary of the Senate as well as the witness putting their initials across the seal of the envelope.
MR. FLAMINIANO. May we respectfully invite Private Prosecutor Bautista to visit our defense table so we can finish the comparison.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And that was the suggestion.
MR. BAUTISTA. I thought I just did that a few minutes ago.
MR. FLAMINIANO. No, we have not finished yet.
MR. BAUTISTA. Why don’t we just, Attorney Flaminiano, sir, may I suggest that we do the comparison on a per document basis as I am presenting them to the witness for identification so that, at least, we can achieve something tonight.
MR. FLAMINIANO. No. We have already achieved a lot tonight.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That was the advice of the Chair…
MR. BAUTISTA. Yes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. … that perhaps you can do for every document this time it will really cause a lot of delay because everytime you present an original it has to be compared with the xeroxed in the possession of the defense.
MR. BAUTISTA. It is not that much of a difficulty, Your Honor, because the basic document consists of only two pages.
MR. FLAMINIANO. But there will be interruptions, Mr. Chief Justice if…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
MR. FLAMINIANO. … you will identify the original then I will compare the xeroxed in my possession with the original.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. The witness, however, is advised not to make not immediately to answer the question until a comparison has been made.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now proceed, Attorney Bautista.
MR. BAUTISTA. Thank you, Your Honor.
Clarissa Ocampo resumes testifying
Mrs. Ocampo, have you met the President, Joseph Ejercito Estrada, the accused?
MS. OCAMPO. Yes, sir.
MR. BAUTISTA. When?
MS. OCAMPO. I beg your pardon?
MR. BAUTISTA. When?
MS. OCAMPO. When. February 4, 2000.
MR. BAUTISTA. Where?
MS. OCAMPO. Malacanang Palace.
MR. BAUTISTA. What were you doing in Malacanang Palace?
MS. OCAMPO. I brought the documents, the documents I have mentioned earlier for signature.
MR. BAUTISTA. Can you repeat the documents that you brought to Malacanang for the signature of the President?
MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, sir…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Attorney Flaminiano.
Defense says Ocampo’s testimony “immaterial”
MR. FLAMINIANO. … we have to object to the question because it is immaterial. The answer sought to be elicited from the witness is not covered by any of the Articles of Impeachment.
MR. BAUTISTA. I think, Your Honor…
MR. FLAMINIANO. It is immaterial, Your Honor, unless they can show the connection to any of the Articles of Impeachment.
MR. BAUTISTA. I think, Your Honor, that it is obvious to any fair minded person that there is a connection between these documents and the charges against the President.
MR. FLAMINIANO. The proper basis has not been laid, we submit, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Lay the basis. You cannot just simply say that it is that should be what would be the conclusion of any fair minded person unless there is a document and the basis is laid.
MR. BAUTISTA. Yes, Your Honor. Mrs. Ocampo, you mentioned that there were a number of documents you brought to Malacanang for signing. What were these documents?
MR. FLAMINIANO. The same objection, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Overruled.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Thank you.
MS. OCAMPO. The Investment Management Agreement, for the 500 million placement; the Investment Guidelines; the Directional Letter of Investment for the lending to Wellex Group, Incorporated; the Signature Cards and a Debit/Credit Authority.
MR. BAUTISTA. How many copies of this Investment Management Agreement did you bring with you?
MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, we have to maintain our objection and we also move to strike out the answer of the witness because the answer does not support any of the allegations of the Articles of Impeachment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Has the witness made an answer already to the last question?
MR. BAUTISTA. Not yet, Your Honor.
MR. FLAMINIANO. There was a previous answer, Your Honor. She was mentioning of some documents.
MR. BAUTISTA. Yes.
MR. FLAMINIANO. She was mentioning of specimen signatures?
MR. BAUTISTA. You do not even know what these documents are. How can you object?
MR. FLAMINIANO. That is the reason why I was objecting because there was no basis for your question.
MR. BAUTISTA. I simply asked what documents did you bring to Malacanang for signing. What is objectionable there? Tell me, in the Rules of Evidence, what is objectionable there?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Enough for that kind of argument.
MR. FLAMINIANO. We submit.
MR. BAUTISTA. I apologize, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. A ruling had been made earlier.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Yes, Your Honor. We submit, Mr. Chief Justice.
MR. BAUTISTA. How many copies, Mrs. Ocampo, of the Investment Management Agreement did you bring to Malacanang for signing?
MR. FLAMINIANO. It has no basis, Your Honor. It talks of how many copies before even the Investment Agreement has been executed by whoever.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The witness is only asked how many copies were brought and so the objection has to be overruled.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
MS. OCAMPO. To my recollection, I brought three copies of the Investment Management Agreement.
MR. BAUTISTA. And were these three copies – were each one of them signed?
MS. OCAMPO. Yes, sir.
MR. BAUTISTA. I am showing to you … May we put it on record, Your Honor, that I am showing to Atty.Flaminiano three original copies of a document called an Investment Management Agreement, each copy consisting of two pages each. And I have with me faithful reproductions of the three said documents which were earlier marked in exhibit and initialed by the Clerk of Court. May I ask Atty. Flaminiano to stipulate that what I just said is accurate.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Well, from what I see, the machine copies appeared to be faithful reproductions of the purported originals.
MR. BAUTISTA. Thank you.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Excuse me, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate President.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. May we warn the gallery to refrain from using cellphones that can still be heard. The ringing of the cellphone are very – is very disturbing to the judges, Mr. Chief Justice.
MR. BAUTISTA. Mrs. Ocampo, I am showing to you three original copies of an Investment Management Agreement, the photocopies of which were marked as Exhibit “UUU” on page 1. On the second page of each of these Investment Agreements, there is a typewritten name “Jose Velarde” and a signature appearing over the said name.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice – oh, well, I am sorry.
MR. BAUTISTA. I still don’t have a question.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Okay, I am sorry. I am sorry.
MR. BAUTISTA. Mrs. Ocampo, on your own personal knowledge, do you know who affixed the signature of Jose Velarde on each of these three Investment Management Agreements?
MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, we have to interpose an objection to the question.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. On what ground?
MR. FLAMINIANO. No. 1, the Investment Agreement that is purportedly the subject of that document being shown to the witness has not been alleged in the Articles of Impeachment.
MR. BAUTISTA. I beg your pardon? I beg your pardon?
MR. FLAMINIANO. Well, will you kindly – may I kindly appeal to the stenographer to …
MR. BAUTISTA. Never mind. Go ahead.
MR. FLAMINIANO. My first objection is that, the so-called Investment Agreement …
MR. BAUTISTA. Yes, sir.
MR. FLAMINIANO. … was not the subject of any allegation in any of the Articles of Impeachment. And No. 2, Mr. Chief Justice, there has been no allegation here that in the Articles of Impeachment that the President, through some nominees or dummies, had committed a violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. There is no such allegation, Your Honor. So, if the tendency of the question is to prove that the President had used a fictitious name or had used a dummy in the execution or accomplishment of the so-called Investment Agreement, that is not the subject matter of any of the allegations of the Articles of Impeachment. And for that reason, we submit that the question would seem to be immaterial to us.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any reply?
MR. BAUTISTA. I think it has been the same argument that has been extensively discussed before, and the Chair has already ruled on it, Your Honor.
MR. FLAMINIANO. The questions were allowed as preliminary and conditional, but now they are going to a very vital issue that is not covered by any of the allegations of impeachment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That was the reason why during the caucus earlier between the parties, the prosecutor was informed that he should make a direct connection with what had been alleged or what would be the evidentiary matter. So you can probably go direct to the point.
MR. BAUTISTA. My question is very direct, may I submit. Who put the signature of Jose Velarde on these three documents?
MR. FLAMINIANO. We have the same objection, Your Honor, for lack of basis.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. How would you relate that to the evidentiary matter you would like to establish?
MR. BAUTISTA. Well, if she answers that this was affixed by the President, Your Honor, obviously, that will indicate that he has committed …
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. How would you relate that to the evidentiary matter you would like to establish in relation to Article II of the Articles of Impeachment?
MR. BAUTISTA. Your Honor, it would constitute a violation of the Anti Graft Law, and it would be indicative that the President has accumulated unexplained wealth, using dummies, using fictitious names for accounts with hundreds of millions of pesos.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Have this been alleged in the Articles of Impeachment?
MR. BAUTISTA. We submit that they have been, Your Honor. On Page 5, the second paragraph, second sentence, and I quote: “He also violated the Anti Graft Law he is sworn to uphold. He filed his Statement of Assets and Liabilities for the year 1999, stating therein that he and his wife have business interests in only three corporations. If the President had only three corporations, how in heaven’s name was he able to accumulate and keep P= 1.2 billion in a savings account?
MR. FLAMINIANO. Are you through …
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Flaminiano.
MR. FLAMINIANO. … the private prosecutor?
If it pleases the Impeachment Court, Counsel did not read the entirety of the paragraph involved, and I’m going to read it, Your Honor. “He also violated the Anti Graft Law he is sworn to uphold. He filed his Statement of Assets and Liabilities for the year 1999 stating therein that he and his wife and children have business interests in only three corporations. The President by that sworn statement also committed perjury in the offense of unexplained wealth because records show that he and his wife and mistresses and their children have other interests in other companies outside of the three firms listed in his Statement of Assets and Liabilities.” There is no allegation in this Article II of the Articles of Impeachment that we have read, which specifically charges the President that he used a fictitious name, or a dummy, or nominee in entering into private transactions, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There is that allegation coursed in a general way regarding violation.
MR. BAUTISTA. May I respond, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let me finish.
MR. BAUTISTA. I’m sorry.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is your evidence to prove that there have been a violation of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act by other means?
MR. BAUTISTA. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What other means?
MR. BAUTISTA. Unexplained wealth by using fictitious accounts, Your Honor. If I may read the last paragraph which …
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In other words, what you are saying will be that the ultimate fact is the violation of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act?
MR. BAUTISTA. Yes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And then?
MR. BAUTISTA. And that the President put …
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We are not going to teach you what to do, but if that is your ultimate fact, then you go somewhere else if you really want to avoid any objection on the part of the defense.
MR. BAUTISTA. If your Honor please. If he had interest in the three companies only, how can he explain P500 million subject of this very transaction?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Do you have any evidence to which it may be linked that he had other sources of income which will not justify 500 million?
MR. BAUTISTA. That’s a matter of defense, Your Honor, and that does not preclude the prosecution.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is exactly the reason why the Chair is asking you for you to be able to make any link.
MR. BAUTISTA. I respectfully submit, Your Honor, that we can make that link later on.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then, what would you propose now if it could be linked later on?
MR. BAUTISTA. I would like to have the witness’ answer admitted conditionally. If we fail to link….
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. On condition that….
MR. BAUTISTA. On the condition that we will be able to present the evidence with respect to the statement of assets and liabilities of the President.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And in the event you will not be able to?
MR. BAUTISTA. We are willing to have the testimony stricken off the record, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Atty. Flaminiano.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, I do not know whether counsel stated the correct rule. What I understand by conditional admissibility is, for instance, where a party presents a xerox copy, the Court will allow the witness to examine the document subject later to the presentation of the original. That is what we understand as a common example of conditional admissibility. But what we are talking about is evidence in relation to specific charges in the Articles of Impeachment. If there is no allegation that the President had used a fictitious name or had a nominee or dummy in entering into his private transactions, then we submit that evidence cannot be received at this time. There can be no conditional admissibility on this point, Your Honor.
We submit.
Precisely… if Your Honor please, if I may be allowed to go a little bit further. As we understand the posture of the prosecution and as correctly observed by Atty. Mendoza, they just want the public to hear what these documents are all about. We are sure that they cannot establish any connection between these documents and the President in relation to the Articles of Impeachment. Of course, we understand that the nation’s attention has been focused on this impeachment trial. But we also say that the respondent is also entitled to some degree of fairness that he may not be subjected to trial by publicity, Mr. Chief Justice.
We submit.
Senator-Judge Raul Roco weighs in
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator Roco.
SEN. ROCO. Mr. Chief Justice, I think counsel exceeded his zeal. And I take exception to the statements as a member of this Court that anything here is being done for publicity. It is a public trial. And I guess, I can only take so much, Mr. Chief Justice.
The question remains pending as to who signed the document. I think that can be answered, Mr. President. And these allegations imputing motives upon the Court or anyone has no place in a proceeding like this.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, may I respond to that?
We do not impute any improper motive on the part of any member of this Honorable Impeachment Body; what we only decry is the posture of the prosecution in trying to project their case through publicity. We are not saying that this Court tolerates as prejudicial publicity.
SEN. ROCO. Well, I’m glad that is taken back, Mr. Chief Justice. But I think the question is fairly simple now. They have gotten to the point where the lady went to Malacanang and she is now asked if anything was done with the document.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I think that is not the point of the defense; the point of the defense is the relevance and materiality of this particular proof to an ultimate fact which is alleged in Article II.
SEN. ROCO. We have been going around in circles on this, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. Anyway, in the meantime, the Chair would recognize the Honorable Senator Judge Cayetano.
SEN. CAYETANO. Mr. Chief Justice, I thought the Chief Justice allowed the witness to examine the documents already, in spite of the objection which was overruled, objection by the defense.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a new objection, Your Honor.
SEN. CAYETANO. Yes, I know, but the Chair the Honorable Chief Justice already allowed the presentation of the document by the prosecution to the witness.
So, what is logical to follow, Mr. Chief Justice, is for the witness to identify. And I think that is a simple question being asked. I don’t see, personally, as also a senator judge, why after the witness has been shown the document, she has looked at it and she already said na, “ito ay pinirmahan sa harapan ko,” eh bakit hindi ho natin itutuloy ito? I do not see the logic of preventing the witness from answering the question.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Procedurally, there seems to be some logic in what you said, but the issue that is being raised is very substantive and substantial. And so, we have to we have to settle that particular issue.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
MR. FLAMINIANO….may I say a few words? We believe that the prosecutors are not even sure of whether they can connect these documents to any of the articles of impeachment. They are saying that the documents should be conditionally admitted; that the witness be allowed to conditionally answer questions; and that in the event that no connection is made, they are willing to expunge from the records of the testimony of the witness. But by then, Mr. Chief Justice, irreparable damage could have already been done to the party affected thereby.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair was about to make a ruling on this issue.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It will not be admitted conditionally. The prosecution must establish a connection between the ultimate fact, the evidentiary matters in relation thereto. The ultimate fact is just stated in the articles the second article. But the evidence in support therefor may be anything relevant thereto. Anything relevant thereto and by “relevance,” I mean that any evidence which would in any way tend to prove or disprove what is the ultimate fact.
So, in the meantime, the witness should answer the question.
MR. BAUTISTA. Thank you, Your Honor.
Mrs. Ocampo, who signed this signature?
MS. OCAMPO. The President, Joseph Ejercito Estrada.
MR. BAUTISTA. How far away were you from the President when he affixed the signature of Jose Velarde on these copies of the Investment Management Agreement?
MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, may we interpose…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Attorney Flaminiano.
SEN. CAYETANO….a continuing objection to all these line of questioning, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The continuing objection is noted and allowed, especially because there was a statement on the part of the defense of the prosecution that it would be submitted as it would be subjected to the condition that if once there is a connection or once it would establish an allegation, then it would stand; if it will not, then it has to be expunged from the record. And that should be very made it should be clear to all parties concerned.
If the prosecution cannot make any connection, direct or indirect, the testimony will be stricken off the record and expunge therefrom.
MR. BAUTISTA. Yes, Your Honor. But that connection may not necessarily be established through this witness, that connection could be done through other witnesses, through other evidence.
We would like to present the Statement of Assets and Liabilities of the President which is a public record, which says that he only has P= 35 million, Your Honor. And if it is proven, as the witness has already proven, that the President owns the Jose Velarde account, which on this one sole transaction alone involved P=500 million….
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, you can go forward with your evidence later on to remove the effect of a conditional evidence.
MR. BAUTISTA. Thank you, Your Honor.
On each of these Investment Management Agreements…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator Judge Drilon.
SEN. DRILON. There was a pending question which was not answered, Your Honor. How far was the witness from the President? The records will bear.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, I understand there was a pending question but the counsel abandoned it and made another question.
SEN. DRILON. There was no manifestation to that effect with due respect.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, it was we leave it to the prosecution, what the prosecution should do.
MR. BAUTISTA. Thank you.
May I reiterate my former question, Mrs. Ocampo. How far away were you from the President when he affixed the signature of Jose Velarde on each of these three copies of the Investment Management Agreement?
MS. OCAMPO. Sir, I was about one foot away because I was seated beside him on his left side.
MR. BAUTISTA. And at the time the President affixed his signature I’m sorry affixed the signature Jose Velarde on these documents, were there any other witnesses to this signature?
MS. OCAMPO. Yes, sir.
MR. BAUTISTA. Who?
MS. OCAMPO. The head of our Legal Department, Atty. Manuel Curato.
MR. BAUTISTA. Who else, if any?
MS. OCAMPO. Fernando Chua. Atty. Fernando Chua was there and Mr. Lacquian was also there.
MR. BAUTISTA. Who is Atty. Fernando Chua.
MS. OCAMPO. He was the person that Mr. George Go introduced to me as the person who is the representative of the principal.
MR. BAUTISTA. And who is this Mr. Lacquian which you mentioned?
MS. OCAMPO. The former executive secretary.
MR. BAUTISTA. On these documents, there is the name Clarissa G. Ocampo and on each of the documents, there appears a signature. Mrs. Ocampo, do you know whose signature this is?
MS. OCAMPO. Sir, this is my signature.
MR. BAUTISTA. Again, on each of these documents, there is a typewritten name Manuel Curato and on each of these documents appears a signature, whose signature is this?
MS. OCAMPO. These are the signatures of Manuel Curato, Atty. Manuel Curato, the head of our Legal Department.
MR. BAUTISTA. And did you witness Atty. Manuel Curato affix his signature on these documents?
MS. OCAMPO. Yes, sir.
MR. BAUTISTA. When did he do that?
MS. OCAMPO. After I signed the documents, then I passed them on to him and he signed the document as well as witness.
Clarissa Ocampo says she was one foot away from Estrada
MR. BAUTISTA. You mentioned, Mrs. Ocampo, that you had a number of documents with you which were signed by the President in the name of Jose Velarde. What other documents are these?
MS. OCAMPO. The directional letter of investment.
MR. BAUTISTA. What else?
MS. OCAMPO. The investment guidelines.
MR. BAUTISTA. What else?
MS. OCAMPO. The signature cards.
MR. BAUTISTA. What else?
MS. OCAMPO. And the debit/credit authority.
MR. BAUTISTA. What else?
MS. OCAMPO. That’s about it, sir.
MR. BAUTISTA. You mentioned a signature card. I am showing to you two original signature cards from PCI Bank, Account Name C163, Trust Account Number 10178056 1. Now, on each of these signature cards, there appear three signatures, who affixed of a person named Jose Velarde. Who affixed these signatures?
MS. OCAMPO. The President Joseph Ejercito Estrada.
MR. BAUTISTA. How far away were you from the President when he affixed these six signatures?
MS. OCAMPO. I was one foot away. I was beside him.
MR. BAUTISTA. On the face of these signature cards, in the bottom box portion, there is there appear the words “authenticated/approved by” and it is blank. Can you explain to me why this box with the statement “Autenticated/Approved By” remains blank?
MS. OCAMPO. When he signed “Jose Velarde,” I just couldn’t believe it. He did not sign his real name, so I decided not to authenticate the signature.
MR. BAUTISTA. May I proceed, Your Honors? In the meantime, for the marking of the originals, I invite counsel for the defense, Atty. Flaminiano, to compare the original Investment Management Agreement with the photocopy which has been marked as Exhibit “UUU,” and I ask him to stipulate that the photocopy is a faithful reproduction.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, the photocopy appears to be a faithful reproduction of what a
appears to be a purported original.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Make it of record.
MR. BAUTISTA. Upon the request — upon the suggestion of the defense, we are asking that the original be marked.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let the markings correspond to the markings of the xerox copies. All the originals now should be marked.
MR. BAUTISTA. If Your Honor please, may I ask that I be allowed to proceed with the witness while Atty. Poblador proceeds with the marking of the original.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, it is not Atty. Poblador who will mark the exhibits.
MR. BAUTISTA. I mean, when the Clerk of Court will mark the exhibits, Your Honor please.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The originals now?
MR. BAUTISTA. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The markings thereon should correspond to the markings of the exhibits, of the xerox copies already distributed to the defense and to the members of the Court and the Presiding Officer and the Senate President.
MR. BAUTISTA. Yes, Your Honor. May I proceed, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may proceed.
MR. BAUTISTA. Thank you. You mentioned, Mrs. Ocampo, that among the documents you brought to Malacañang and which were signed by the President with the name “Jose Velarde” included a directional letter which I am now showing to you dated 04 February 2000. There appears a signature on the bottom right-hand corner of this document in the name of Jose Velarde. Who affixed the signature of Jose Velarde on this document?
MS. OCAMPO. The President, Joseph Ejercito Estrada affixed the signature.
MR. BAUTISTA. And how far away were you from him when he affixed this signature?
MS. OCAMPO. I was one foot away.
MR. BAUTISTA. You likewise mentioned, Mrs. Ocampo, that there was an Authority to Debit Account dated February 4, 2000. I am showing you such a document. What relation does this have to the document you earlier mentioned?
MS. OCAMPO. The funding of this account would be coming from the bank, so an officer — and I recall it was Beatriz Bagsit — she gave me an envelope which I did not open at the time she gave it to me, she gave me an envelope which contained letters. And during the signing, I pulled it out and had the President sign it as well. The document or the letter has the name “Jose Velarde” already printed on it.
MR. BAUTISTA. And who affixed the signature “Jose Velarde”?
MS. OCAMPO. The President, Joseph Ejercito Estrada.
MR. BAUTISTA. And how far away were you from him when he affixed his signature on this document?
MS. OCAMPO. I was one foot away.
MR. BAUTISTA. Among the documents you mentioned earlier, Mrs. Ocampo, which you brought to Malacañang for signing was an Investment Program for 1999. I am showing to you this document dated February 4, 2000, identifying it in the first sentence of the first page as the Investment Program for 1999 consisting of 1, 2, 3, 4 8 pages and 2 pages of annexes, what relation does this document have with the Investment Program for 1999 you earlier mentioned?
MS. OCAMPO. This is a standard document for all of the trust accounts, whether trusteeships or investment management arrangements. So, if there are excess funds from the account, then we have the authority to invest in the outlets as outlined in the document.
MR. BAUTISTA. Now, on Page 5 of this document, the photocopy which has been marked as Exhibit “YYY”, there appears a signature …
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Use the original copy.
MR. BAUTISTA. Yes, Your Honor.
… There appears a signature “Jose Velarde” across the word “CONFORME”. Do you know who affixed the signature on Page 5 of the said document?
MS. OCAMPO. Yes, sir.
MR. BAUTISTA. Who?
MS. OCAMPO. The President, Joseph Ejercito Estrada.
MR. BAUTISTA. And how far away were you from the President when he affixed the signature of “Jose Velarde” on this particular document?
MS. OCAMPO. I was one foot away.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Attorney Flaminiano.
MR. FLAMINIANO. We have made a continuing objection to this line of questioning in the honest belief and conviction that these documents do not prove any of the allegations of the Articles of Impeachment.
May I respectfully invite the attention of this Honorable Impeachment Court to the following allegations again, which is found on Page 5 of the Articles of Impeachment. I read: “He also violated the Anti Graft Law he sworn to uphold. He filed his Statement of Assets and Liabilities for the year 1999…” for the year 1999, Mr. Chief Justice, stating therein that he and his wife and children have business interests in only three corporations.
The documents that were identified by the witness are dated February 4, 2000. And even the Investment Agreement is dated 4 February 2000. It is not covered by any of the allegations of the Articles of Impeachment, Your Honor.
MR. BAUTISTA. May I respond to that, if Your Honor please?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let Atty. Flaminiano finish his statement.
MR. BAUTISTA. I’m sorry.
MR. FLAMINIANO. This is what we have been saying all along, that the evidence that is sought to be elicited from this witness are not evidentiary of the allegations of the Articles of Impeachment. And accordingly, we move that the entire testimony of the witness be stricken off the record for being immaterial.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will ask questions to Atty. Bautista in relation to the manifestation of counsel for the defense.
Your thesis is that there have been violation of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. And in relation to that, you made reference to the Statement of Assets and Liabilities for what year?
MR. BAUTISTA. 1999, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Do you know what is the deadline for the submission of the Statement of Assets and Liabilities for year 1999?
MR. BAUTISTA. That would be somewhere in the first quarter, Your Honor, I believe.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Pardon?
MR. BAUTISTA. April 15.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Do you have a copy of the Statement of Assets and Liabilities of the President?
MR. BAUTISTA. Not now, Your Honor. Because I was not tasked by the panel to …
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But that is very critical and crucial to the determination now of the position of the defense.
MR. BAUTISTA. If Your Honor please.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Because if indeed you make any reference to the Statement of Assets and Liabilities for 1999 whose deadline for the filing will be April of 2000, then there seems to be some basis on the ground objected to when it comes to acts or conduct or contracts or documents made in February of 2000. Unless again you can have established a link with the Year 2000 transactions with previous transactions.
MR. BAUTISTA. Your Honor please. As of April 1999, the Statement of Assets and Liabilities of the President…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Do not you believe then that you have to produce first the Statement of Assets and Liabilities for 1999 before we could go any further? Precisely because basic here is due process, it is not just procedural.
SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Enrile.
SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, the Statement of Assets and Liabilities for 1999 will cover only the assets of the filer that he accumulated up to December 31st of the Year 1999 regardless of when thereafter that Statement of Assets and Liabilities was finally filed with the government agency concerned so that between January 1st, 2000 up to February 4, 2000, then there is a gap of time where the person concerned could possibly have accumulated such a wealth, assuming that that wealth was accumulated. It could be accumulated in a gambling operation, in the stock market, and some other sources. And you cannot just draw a conclusion or a presumption that the wealth that is not reflected in the 1999 Statement of Assets and Liabilities has been ill gotten, simply because it was not included in the 1999 statement of liabilities. We do not know when that 500 million was earned by the person concerned.
MR. BAUTISTA. If Your Honor please, as of December 1999 then, the assets of the President totaled only 35 million. By February of…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the basis for that? Do you have any basis for that? Is the defense willing to produce the Statement of Assets and Liabilities of the President for 1999?
MR. FLAMINIANO. At this juncture, Your Honor, we are not, I think, bound to produce it at this time, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Because the key to the solution of this due process issue would really be the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.
Senator Judge Cayetano.
SEN. CAYETANO. For my education, Mr. Chief Justice, I also have read the Complaint Article of Impeachment No. 2 and let me also read the same statement read by Atty. Flaminiano.
“The President by that sworn statement,” that means the Statement of Assets and Liabilities…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For what year?
SEN. CAYETANO. For 1999.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Exactly. Where is it?
SEN. CAYETANO. I’m not finished yet, Mr. Chief Justice. Please allow me.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yeah.
SEN. CAYETANO. “…also committed perjury. And,” now, to me, this is the most important. “And,” that’s a conjunction, “and the offense of unexplained wealth.” Because…
SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice.
SEN. CAYETANO. Let me explain.
SEN. ENRILE. Yeah, yeah. Okay.
SEN. CAYETANO. Because, Mr. Chief Justice, under the Anti Graft Law, the possession of unexplained wealth is also punishable under Section 8.
So my reading here is that this document is not only related to the Statement of Assets and Liabilities for 1999 but also charges a separate offense of unexplained wealth, and it does not matter when that unexplained wealth was acquired for as long as that unexplained wealth was acquired under Section 8 during the incumbency of the public official. That is my submission.
SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If the gentleman is through already…
SEN. CAYETANO. Yes, yes. Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. …the Chair would recognize the Honorable Senator-Judge Enrile.
SEN. ENRILE. There is a violation of the Anti-Graft Law with respect to the filing of Statement of Assets and Liabilities only if there is a real proof, a direct proof that that 500 million was earned in 1999 and the earner did not reflect it in his Statement of Assets and Liabilities for 1999, as of December 31, 1999. Suppose that the filer stated that subsequently at the end when he is called upon to file his Statement of Assets and Liabilities for 2000, would there be a violation of the Anti-Graft Law at that point? Because the proof so far before the Court is that there is an Investment Agreement dated February 4, 1999 covering an amount of P500 million. So, this is past 1999. So, you cannot relate that 500 million to the Calendar Year 1999, Mr. Chief Justice, unless there is a separate independent proof that that 500 million now covered by this investment document was earned in 1999 or before 1999.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator-Judge Drilon.
SEN. DRILON. Mr. President, the complaint in its charge, in Charge II, Pages 4 and 5 of the Articles of Impeachment read already – I don’t know how many times – for the last six hours. It says very clearly, the last time it was quoted by Senator Cayetano, “The President by that sworn statement also committed perjury and the offense of unexplained wealth.”
What is the offense of unexplained wealth? It is punished under Republic Act No. 1379. Now, what does 1379 provide under Section 2 thereof? “Whenever any public officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency an amount of property which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as a public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property, said property shall be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired.”
Now, the statement is in this… Under Section 8 of the Anti-Graft Law, it is also provided that if in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act No. 1379, which I just read, “A public official has been found to have acquired during his incumbency, whether in his name or in the name of other name of other persons, an amount of property and/or money manifestly out of proportion to his salary and to his other lawful income, that fact shall be a ground for dismissal or removal.” This is provided under Anti-Graft Law; it is provided – it is cited under Republic Act 1379.
So, the proof of this 500 million, which is manifestly out of proportion to the salary of President Estrada, is clearly material, Your Honor. And I think this has been exhaustively argued over the past several hours. All that we have been arguing on this –and I think it is very clear that this is covered, both under the Articles of Impeachment and the law, Republic Act 1379, and the Anti Graft Law. Thank you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any further observation?
SEN. GUINGONA. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator Judge Miriam Defensor Santiago. After that, the Chair will recognize the Honorable Senator Judge Guingona.
Senator-Judge Miriam Santiago weighs in
SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. Mr. Chief Justice, I respectfully concur with the opinion expressed by the Chief Justice that this is is not an ordinary technicality. And while we are on the question of technicality, please allow me to disabuse the minds of those who have repeatedly said, “Let us forego with technicality so let’s get at the truth.” That is the very purpose of a proceeding because there are many truths just as there are many beholders. And the only way you can get to the truth in the distilled wisdom of our civilization is through what other people call the “technicalities of the law.” As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. of the Supreme Court of the United States said, “The life of the law has not been logic. It has been experience.” That is why I concur with what the Chief Justice said, “This is a substantial matter of due process of law.” We have previously seen that due process consists of: (1) Proper notice as defined in law; and (2) Hearing. The fact is that any accused or respondent in any case – civil, criminal or impeachment, is entitled to due notice. This notice is carried out in the Articles of Impeachment in an impeachment case. And therefore our question should be: Is there anything in the Articles of Impeachment which constitutes an ultimate fact on which the evidence of this witness may be considered evidentiary?
On this point, I would like to cite the decision of our Supreme Court in the case of Tantuico, Jr. versus Republic, decided in 1991. There, the Supreme Court said, “The term ultimate facts means the essential facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action. A fact is essential if it cannot be stricken out without leaving the statement of the cause of action insufficient.”
I submit, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator Judge Guingona.
SEN. GUINGONA. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. I adopt the manifestation of Senator Drilon. and in addition, Mr. Chief Justice, it seems that we are prematurely blocking or objecting to items which could lead to further enlightenment on this vital issue. Where did the 500 million come from? Did it come from Equitable Bank? Under whose name? Was it a savings account? I think these are truths that we should go after. And we are being hindered before she can even testify fully as to the facts surrounding the source of these 500 million.
So, I think, Mr. Chief Justice, the allegation in the unexplained wealth in the charge is sufficient and adequate. And the fact of the 1999 Statement of Assets and Liabilities can be left later on if it can be shown where the source of this P500 million far greater than the 35 million alleged in the 1999 Statement of Assets and Liabilities.
Thank you.
The Senate President is recognized. He made an earlier reservation. And after that the Honorable, Senator Judge Roco.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Anybody else from the Impeachment Court after Senator Roco?
After that the Chair will make the ruling.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. May I respectfully invite attention to the fact that the last sentence of Article of Impeachment No. II states the following:
“The President by that sworn statement also committed perjury and the offense of unexplained wealth because records show that he and his wife and mistresses and their children have other interest in other companies outside of the three firms listed in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.” May I underscore the words “records show” “the records show”, Mr. Chief Justice, “that he and his wife and mistresses and their children have other interest in other companies outside of the three firms,” etcetera. May not the question that has been objected to be justified to show that there are records that show that he and his wife and mistresses and children have other interest in other companies outside of the three firms listed in the statement of assets and liabilities.
Now, these are statements of fact, Mr. Chief Justice. It is a statement that says that there are records that show that the President and his wife and mistresses and children have other interest in other companies outside of the three firms. And, therefore, my submission is, may not the question then be precisely allowed because these are records that will show the facts alleged in the last sentence of Articles of Impeachment No. 2.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Senator Judge Roco.
Senator-Judge Raul Roco expounds on public office & public trust
SEN. ROCO. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. Ngayon po, naiintindihan ko na kung ano ang problema dahil sinabi dito mayroon daw due process violated. At sinabi rito na narinig ko, hindi pa naman daw nakapagpa file ng Enero 2001 kaya wala pa. Hindi n’yo pa puwedeng pag usapan. ‘Yon pala, kaming mga public officers, puwede kaming magnakaw basta at hindi n’yo kami puwedeng ihabla hanggang mag file kami ng statement of assets and liabilities. Aba’y hindi ko matanggap po ‘yan. Hindi ko matanggap ang interpretasyon na ‘yan. Hindi po puwede na maghihintay tayo hanggang Abril bago maghabla. Eh kung makita mong nagnanakaw, magnanakaw at tawagin mong magnanakaw at ihabla n’yo. Kaya pala ganito ang uri ng sitwasyon ng bayan natin at hindi pala tayo puwedeng maghabla hanggang Abril. Mali po ‘yon.
Sa akin po, ang due process, nabanggit. The life of the law is not logic. The life of the law is experience. Well, sayang lang po, wala ‘yong kaibigan ko dito eh. Noong sinulat po ‘yan, hindi pa justice si Justice Holmes. Sinulat po ‘yan nong siya’y nagtuturo pa sa Harvard bago na appoint na justice. At sinabi po ‘yan nong sinulat niya ang tungkol sa common law, tungkol sa iba ibang uring eksperyensiya na puwedeng pag usapan ng mga abogado na pinanggagalingan ng ating mga batas. ‘Yon lamang po ang pagkasabi. Pero hindi po gustong sabihin na walang logic ang batas. Hindi naman puwedeng hindi logical. Kailangan may logic din ang batas. So hindi bawal sa batas na may logic. So ‘yon pong quotation na ‘yon, hindi gustong sabihin na tayo mismo dito walang logic.
Sa basa ko po dito, nakalagay doon, malinaw na malinaw, ulit nang ulit, “The President has violated the Anti Graft Law.” Sa Anti Graft Law, ang haba haba po. In fact, baka mapatingin ka lang sa dalaga, violation na ng Anti Graft Law eh. Mayroong undue advantage. Ang dami dami. ‘Yon pala, kung mayroon kang 500 million at ang suweldo mo half a million a year, hindi tayo magsususpetsa na may violation. Aba’y nakapagtataka. Eh ano pala ang susundin nating patakaran? Diyan sa Constitution, sabi, “Public office is a public trust.” Tayo daw shall be shall act with utmost diligence, with utmost loyalty, with utmost patriotism, with utmost justice, and live simple lives. Five hundred million, simple life? Aba’y kung hindi po relevant ‘yan eh tapusin na natin ‘to. Ano bang relevant na tinatanong mong material? ‘Yan po ay dapat tanungin. Ngayon, pagkatapos ng witness, gisahin ng mga abogado because the test of truth in a democracy is precisely the questions that ferret out the truth which will be exercised by the defense counsel at pag hindi po sila mag cross examine ngayon, wala naman sanang mangyari sa iyo, Mrs. Ocampo. Pag wala pong hindi sila makapag cross examine ngayon eh baka mabale wala ang testimony kaya po ingatan nila. Dahil dito natin susundin si Senator Honasan, eh, marami naman daw, marami naman daw pong bantay kay Mrs. Ocampo, di bantayan para makapag-cross-examine sa panahon na dapat sina Atty. Mendoza. Iyon lamang po ang gusto kong sabihin. Maraming salamat ho.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We will have to hear the defense. We’ll have the final say.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, before the Chief Justice makes a ruling, we should just like to point out that in the paragraph that we read on Page 5, this is the allegation: “He filed his Statement of Assets and Liabilities for the year 1999, stating therein that he and his wife and children have business interest in only three corporations.” Then this is the crucial sentence, Your Honor. “The President by that sworn statement,” referring to the Statement of Assets and Liabilities, the President by that sworn statement “also committed perjury and the offense of unexplained wealth.” So, the perjury charge and the unexplained wealth charge is related to the filing of the Statement of Assets and Liabilities for the year 1999.
Mr. Chief Justice, we have been lengthily arguing on questions of procedure, substantive procedure and procedural due process. I recall the language of Justice Douglas of the United Supreme Court, when he said that it is not at all surprising that most of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights are procedural in nature because it is procedure that spells much of the difference between rule by law and rule by whim or caprice. This is a very substantive procedural point that we break, Your Honor. It also involves the substantial rights of the accused to due process. We submit that all the testimony of the witness be stricken off the records for being grossly immaterial and irrelevant to the issues involved in any of the Articles of Impeachment. We submit, Your Honors.
MR. BAUTISTA. Your Honor, please.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What’s the desire of Atty. Bautista?
MR. BAUTISTA. I am not as eloquent as my friend, Atty. Flaminiano. I am not as seasoned. I have a very simple mind and I ask very simple questions.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you asking a question?
MR. BAUTISTA. I have just been given, Your Honor please, a photocopy of the Sworn Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth purportedly of the President as of December 31, 1999. Cash on Hand and in Bank, 6,590,535; Investment, 15,191,000.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, may I interrupt.
MR. BAUTISTA. Total…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let him finish first.
MR. BAUTISTA. I am not yet finished, sir.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You will have your chance. This is a new matter, so you wait.
MR. BAUTISTA. Total Personal and Other Properties, 39 million; Real Properties, 9 million; Liabilities, 12.9; Net Worth, Total Assets less Total Liabilities, 35,862,739. I ask. How could the President have improved his financial condition from December 31, 1999 to February 4, 2000, less than two months, by P500 million. And as the Senator-Judge Drilon pointed out under the Anti-Graft Law, if there is unexplained wealth, the presumption of law is that it is ill-gotten and the burden of proving that it is not ill-gotten is on the President. I ask these simple questions. And I think the Filipino people know the answer.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, sir.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We can allow you because that was entirely new matter.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.
Well, …
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Later, the Honorable Senator Judge Defensor Santiago.
MR. FLAMINIANO. The prosecution seems to be arguing their case even before the completion of the testimony of the witness, Your Honor.
MR. BAUTISTA. That was what you were doing, sir.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Counsel, please, do not interrupt.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Anyway…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is also part of the ruling, of the agreement.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Anyway, we have not been furnished with a copy of that document that the private prosecutor read and we respectfully maintain, Your Honor, that the testimony of the witness be expunged from the record.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The testimony of the witness.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Yes, Your Honor, for being immaterial.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will now make a ruling.
This relates to Article II of the Articles of Impeachment. And the parties had agreed during the preliminary conference on the issue relating thereto and that is whether on the basis of the facts alleged therein, the President could be guilty of graft and corruption.
It was pointed out by the Honorable Senator Judge Frank Drilon that this particular Article mentions, in fact, two laws all related to graft and corruption. The first is the matter of the submission of the statement of assets and liabilities. This statement or requirement of a statement is a requirement under Republic Act 3019, as amended, the Anti-Graft and Correct Practices Act and Republic Act 6713, the Ethical Standard Act.
The second allegation in the Article relates to unexplained wealth and unexplained wealth may be ill gotten wealth which is also covered by another law, and that is Republic Act 1379, as mentioned by Senator Drilon.
Consequently, any evidence tending to prove ill gotten wealth may be deemed covered by Article II. The only problem being that, there is as yet no basis that the 500,000,000 is ill gotten, so there must be a basis to show that that, in fact, is ill gotten. Unless there is a basis that it is ill gotten, then I think the objection may be sustained.
So, lay the predicate if you want to proceed, Mr. Counsel.
MR. BAUTISTA. If Your Honor please, I respectfully submit that due to the great disproportion between the financial assets of the President in December of 1999 as compared to the P500,000,000 he had on February 4, and as prosecution panel will later on prove that he had l.2 billion pesos in one savings account, in one bank, I submit, Your Honor, that the burden of proof is on the President. We are not required to lay any predicate.
I respectfully submit, Your Honor, that is what the law says.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Mr. Counsel, you are in the prosecution.
MR. BAUTISTA. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And therefore, the burden of proof is in the prosecution.
MR. BAUTISTA. But the law says, Your Honor…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then…Let me finish first.
MR. BAUTISTA. I’m sorry.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Do not interrupt the Chair when the Chair is speaking. That was also the agreement.
MR. BAUTISTA. Pardon me, Your Honor.
Joker Arroyo promises to prove ill-gotten wealth angle
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will not prevent you from establishing that, in fact and in truth, the 500,000,000 is ill gotten, because if indeed it is ill gotten and your conclusion is that it is ill gotten because of the short length of time between the submission of the statement of assets and liabilities for the period 1999 or for the year 1999, and on February, when supposedly the account now in question was opened. Now, if you have any evidence to prove the fact that it is ill-gotten, well and good. And the Court will not prevent you from making such a proof. So, the question now is, do you have any evidence later to link the five hundred million to ill-gotten wealth? That’s the … That is as simple as that.
REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice. Again, since this article is under my supervision and control, we will do exactly as what the Chief Justice says.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You will prove that?
REP. ARROYO. That’s correct, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Therefore, you are saying that these questions now would only be preliminary?
REP. ARROYO. We said that this is subject to …
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, defense counsel, that is the position of the prosecution now. They are going to prove that the five hundred million is ill-gotten and, therefore, it is well within the second aspect of Article II of the Articles of Impeachment, meaning under 1379 — R.A. 1379.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Mr. Chief Justice, we have just listened to the argument of Atty. Bautista. He said
that the presumption is that this money is ill-gotten.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, the Court did not allow that presumption.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Anyway …
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It is a presumption which would mean nothing at all. It has no weight unless it is established by evidence.
MR. FLAMINIANO. That’s correct, Mr. Chief Justice. Because as they say, presumptions are like the bats of the law, fleeting in the twilight but disappearing in the sunshine of actual facts. And there are no actual facts yet adduced, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Presiding Officer will repeat.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Anyway, we believe that there is no basis …
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Just for a while, just for a while, just for a while.
MR. FLAMINIANO. … there is no basis for the conditional admissibility of the testimony of the witness, Mr. Chief Justice. We have to object to that.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Presiding Officer will repeat. In cases like these, the burden of the evidence would never be shifted to the defense unless the prosecution has established its own evidence, and the prosecution has to establish that the five hundred million is in fact ill-gotten. That is the ruling of the Chair and you have the commitment of Prosecutor Arroyo that its evidence, meaning the prosecution’s evidence will lead to that.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Now, may we respectfully request Congressman Joker Arroyo who are the witnesses who will connect this P500,000,000.00 on which this witness is going to testify. We want to find out if there is a connection. If there is none, we might as well know. But this time, Mr. Chief Justice …
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. May the two counsel approach the bench.
MR. FLAMINIANO. Thank you, sir.
MR. BAUTISTA. May I be permitted?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, only the head of the panel so we will not be confused again with so many people around.
(Informal Conference)
THE TRIAL WAS RESUMED AT 8:55 P.M.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The trial is resumed.
Yes, the Honorable Senator Judge Sergio Osmeña III.
SEN. OSMEÑA (S.). Mr. Chief Justice, can I address few questions to the prosecutor?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. To the counsel for the prosecution?
SEN. OSMEÑA (S.). That’s correct.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. As part of the discussion of the legal issue involved?
SEN. OSMEÑA (S.). Just some clarificatory questions.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair may allow that as was done earlier in the other issue.
REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice, can Prosecutor Moreno answer the questions, or the two of us?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Go ahead.
REP. MORENO. I’d be willing to answer any question, Mr. Chief Justice, Your Honors.
SEN. OSMEÑA (S.). Mr. Moreno, in the letter of President Estrada to Ms. Bagsit, he mentions Account Number 0011025495 4, is that correct?
REP. MORENO. You’re right, Mr. Honorable Senator Judge Osmeña. You’re referring to Exhibit “XXX?”
SEN. OSMEÑA (S.). That’s right. And was that account not opened in 1999?
REP. MORENO. It was, Your Honor, already in place as of, at least, 26 August of 1999. If you’ll recall the other day, this Court before this Honorable Court, that envelope sealed envelope coming from Equitable PCI was opened and one of the documents retrieved from that sealed envelope was a specimen signature card.
In fact, there were two specimen signature cards and in the space at the bottom left of each of the signature cards, written are the following: S A 0160 62501 5 and this what I have read, Your Honor, is exactly the same as the number appearing in Exhibit “XXX,” first line of the letter, the first paragraph, Your Honor.
SEN. OSMEÑA (S.). No, but, Your Honor, the account that is shown on the P142 check that was made out by Jose Velarde to Jose Luis J. Yulo in October 5 of 1999 seems to show a different account number. It’s 0001110 25495 4.
Now, is that specimen signature card does it show this account number also?
REP. MORENO. Yes, Your Honor. It is, in fact, the number of the current account and the two specimen signature cards that were taken from the sealed envelope the other night do reflect the number at the right top portion of each of these signature cards, the number 25495 4. This is the current account number; whereas, the number below, at the left portion of the specimen signature card pertains to the savings account number.
SEN. OSMEÑA (S.). I see. So that these are the two account numbers, Mr. Prosecutor?
REP. MORENO. Yes, Your Honor. And so, as …
SEN. OSMEÑA (S.). And the letter of Jose Velarde dated February 4, 2000 to Ms. Bagsit, which reads: (Reading)
“This is to authorize you to debit my SA/CA … ”
So, I suppose that stands for Savings Account Current Account, that’s a combo account, I think, Number 0160 62501 5 maintained with your branch” and I guess we know it’s been maintained since 1999, no in the amount of five hundred million pesos and to credit my Trust Account No. 101 78056 1 representing my initial contribution.”
So, therefore, the five hundred million came from an account that was established in 1999 and was also the subject of the check for 142 million made to Jose Yulo.
REP. MORENO. That’s right, Your Honor, although the check was drawn on the current account.
SEN. OSMEÑA (S.). But it’s a combo account.
REP. MORENO. Yes, Your Honor.
SEN. OSMEÑA (S.). Which is why Mr. Jose Velarde refers it to an “SA/CA.”
REP. MORENO. That’s right.
SEN. OSMEÑA (S.). That must be an automatic transfer.
So does the prosecution intend to connect this later?
REP. MORENO. Indeed, indeed, Your Honor.
SEN. OSMEÑA (S.). Thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Honorable Majority Leader.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, the session has gone far beyond our agreed seven o’clock day-to-day suspen¬sion. May I have the unanimous consent of …
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Before you go into that, the Chair would like to announce the agreement reached by the parties when the lawyers were requested to approach the Bench, in relation precisely to the objection as to the unexplained wealth and the assurance of Prosecutor Arroyo that the prosecution has enough evidence to show that indeed and in fact the five hundred million is ill gotten.
During the very brief conference with the lawyers, they have agreed to suspend the trial because of the lateness of the hour and because of the manifestation of Atty. Mendoza that on ground of health he may not be able to sustain another prolonged trial.
On the other hand, the Honorable Prosecutor Arroyo has assured the Presiding Officer, some senators judges and the Senate President, that the prosecution will be able to introduce witnesses to show that the five hundred million subject matter of the controversy now is ill gotten.
However, he cannot disclose the names of these witnesses for security reasons. Nevertheless a compromise agreement was reached. Prosecutor Arroyo will disclose the names of these witnesses to the Senate President whose names shall be kept by the Senate President sub rosa, meaning only to himself.
With this agreement, therefore, that the evidence to establish that the five hundred million is ill gotten and that it might be covered or it might be considered evidence to prove the second part of Article II that was mentioned earlier by the Presiding Judge, meaning, the possibility of violation of RA No. 1379, the trial should now be suspended in the meantime.
REP. ARROYO. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Honorable Arroyo.
A new witness volunteers to testify
REP. ARROYO. Before the session closes, we would like to manifest that while the witness Mrs. Ocampo was testifying, another witness showed up and volunteered to testify. He is no other than the co signatory to the various exhibits that were presented here, a certain Atty. Manuel Curato.
Now, since everybody is in a hurry to go, I cannot I mean, it will be imposing too much on the Court were we to present him but we just wanted to show that because we would like to demonstrate that there seem to be witnesses now who are coming forward and volunteering and in this proceedings and also that the Equitable Bank – Equitable PCI Bank cooperated and gave its consent wholeheartedly to the testimony of Mrs. Ocampo. And I asked Attorney Curato whether his testimony has the blessings of the new management and board of the Equitable PCI Bank and he said, “Yes.” and for which, of course, that makes things simpler for us because we kind of doubted the PCI Bank. So that’s all that I wanted to explain.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Anyway, the matter of gathering and producing witnesses by the prosecution is an affair entirely within the prerogative of the prosecution for as long as the prosecution will comply with the agreements earlier reached and the matter of the disclosure of witnesses. As to their number and if their names can be revealed, to reveal their names. And if they are not to be revealed, then at least if presented without a prior revelation of the name, the defense should be allowed two days to prepare for cross examination. That is a standing agreement. And I hope none of the parties will violate the agreement.
Attorney Daza.
MR. DAZA. I have just been a keen listener to the wise words of the Chief Justice. Nothing to say.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Anybody else who would like to say?
REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice, may I say something. I will be talking of security. Since we are talking of the security of this witness, we filed request or motions requesting for security of our witnesses, Governor Chavit Singson, Mrs. Itchon and Mrs. Lim. Until now, I’m sorry to say, those motions have not been acted upon.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Chair would request would endorse this request to the President of the Senate because I understand that the Senate has its own security force and probably could avail of some other security forces from other agencies of the government. The Supreme Court cannot provide the security. As a matter of fact, the Chief Justice has only one security with him every time he travels.
REP. APOSTOL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.
The witness is in the meantime excused but you are to return on January 2 at two o’clock in the afternoon, Year 2001.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. As this…
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Please sit down in the meantime.
REP. APOSTOL. Yes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Nobody has been excused yet. Until the Court will declare an adjournment, everybody is directed to continue the respect due the Court by sitting down and to await for the final word of the Court.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority Leader.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. As this is our last session before we break for Christmas and the New Year, and we’d like to end on a happy note. I would ask unanimous consent of the Senator Judges and the parties to the trial to extend our thanks to the Presiding Officer for the exemplary manner in which he has conducted our proceedings and to wish him the very best of this season. And perhaps, we may ask the Chief Justice to say a few words before we adjourn after which we would ask a soprano from the Senate Choir to lead us in singing the Jubilee Song.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you very much, Majority Floor Leader.
Perhaps it is very very difficult on the part of the Chief Justice as Presiding Officer to give a Christmas message. The Court and the Senator Judges close another very gruelling and even emotionally charged trial day in fulfillment of their solemn constitutional duty and a proceeding that will decide the fate, not only of the impeached Chief Executive but more significantly of the entire nation and test the maturity and strength of our democracy and our democratic institutions.
Even as we have been witnesses to much division, recriminations, conflict and rancor, we will celebrate Christmas and the culmination of the year-long rejoicing of Christianity’s jubilee with its promises of spiritual rebirth, hope and peace.
Let me share a passage from the Second Book of Chronicles which I believe is apropos in light of our circumstances.
“If my people which are called by my name shall humble themselves and pray and seek my faith and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”
There is no other better time to heed to these words than during this Christmas of 2000, the great Jubilee Year of Christianity. May the love of Christ dwell in the hearts of each one of us and may we share such love to our brothers and sisters, not only this Christmas but throughout the New Year so that our beloved Philippines and fellowmen may enjoy peace, prosperity and harmony.
The words of the Jubilee Song will show us how we can truly live the spirit of Christmas. May I request, therefore, that we listen to the Jubilee Song, a very good way for us to end year 2000 from the Senate Choir. And may I request everybody to rise.
Copies of the song had been distributed and if some of those in the gallery would want to participate in the singing, it would be much welcome and I pray that we should sing it the loudest way we can for Divine guidance.
Where is the Choir? The Choir is over there. We must participate.
Everybody please sing.
(Singing of the Jubilee Song)
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Merry Christmas to us. God bless us all.
The Majority Leader.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, I move to adjourn this impeachment trial until two
o’clock in the afternoon of the 2nd of January 2001.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Any objection? The Chair seems to hear an objection. (Laughter). There is none, so the motion is approved. The impeachment trial is adjourned until two o’clock in the afternoon of 2 January 2001. God bless us all! (Applause).
THE TRIAL WAS ADJOURNED AT 9:18 P.M.
Tasio Espiritu says
nakakatawa si joker binaligtad lang yong direksyon ng pagkasuklay ng buhok.. bumaligtad din pati prinsipyo..
kontrapilo says
Joker is going wild and afraid, he is afraid if the bank deposits of corona may eventually revealed to the public, he is afraid that this will become a precedent , he says what will stop any government agency of scrutinizing the bank deposits because of an alleged crime of graft , what will stop them including us Senators . Joker I think you have to convert your peso account into dollar just what corona did in Dec 12, 2011.
nur says
hhhhhhmmmmm YES!
Anton Mendoza says
Enrile’s treatment of the prosecutors was very inhuman. ’tis beyond comprehension.
అవగాహన కతీతమైన
Dimasalang says
what is revolting about yesterday’s hearing is the charge that the pros is wasting the court’s time. i think we all know by now who is really wasting the court’s precious time., we saw it last week. wala akong masabi sa nangyari kung hindi yan ba ay liberality or partiality.
Anton Mendoza says
partiality is the name of the game. I can only pray for Divine Intervention. Been praying hard ..very very hard.
Dimasalang says
hindi ba ang liwanag? Enrile is even amenable to the Defense request to amend the Impeachment rules to allow Cuevas to object to the questioning of the senator-judges. and we still have to see a situation where Enrile is admonishing the defense and by the way what happened to the motion to cite the defense counsels for contempt? nakalimutan na yata…
rafael l. vidal says
The Ruling of Irrelevancy of the abortive testimonies of the PAL Vice President on Article 3 of the impeachment complaints, could have been seen as a great victory for the Defense had it not been flavored with verbal insults made by presiding judge enrile against the gallant Tupaz & Co.
Instead, it generated symphathy and understanding to the inexperienced prosecutors whose noble aim is to prove the moral decadence and unfitness of the chief justice on trial.
The chair could have ruled in more subtle and diplomatic ways than to expose the prosecutors, and ther witness as well, to public humiliation.
“I would rather lose in a cause that I know some day will triumph than to truimph in a cause that I know some day will fail.” – Wendell L. Willkie
parengtony says
Enrile disallows testimony of PAL VP re tremendous personal benefits provided by PAL to Corona. (just as he disallowed presentation of evidence on Corona’s acceptance of a huge – 10M pesos – discount from Megaworld re purchase of 303 sqm Belagio I penthouse with 3 parking slots).
Now I realize where all the “in the spirit of liberality” gestures by IC Presiding Officer Enrile are really coming from.
At the end of the day, he will have his cake and eat it too.
Andie says
Maiba lang…I found this floating on Facebook. I guess “respect” does not ring a bell in this person’s vocabulary. He was my professor in law school [sadly] and is a Dean of a law school [I believe it’s PLM].
http://impeachmentwatch.com/the-dean-aka-atty-judd-roy/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=twitter
dtranscriber says
Another thing that puzzles me…. PSB said I think two days ago or three days ago when questions by JPEnrile for the first time about how they have secured the document of CJ Corona, he said that first time that upon receipt from Katipunan branch of said docs, he immediately instructed his subordinate to keep it in a vault with double authentication process.
Now, yesterday he added something new, he said that he kept the docs at his personal “cabinet” under lock and key for a few days to secure the docs since he’s the only one who has access to it, then after it was subpoenaed he said he instructed his subordinate to keep it in a vault with the 2-way authentication process.
Just a thought to ponder on his statement….
Mel says
Can a ‘very haggard’ looking Lady help in R Corona’s removal from SC?
Johnny lin says
@maribeth
Spot on. Your BSP experience elucidated the PEP markings on card, that possibly a NEW SET of cards were made after the audit, supporting one of theories speculated. Possibly too bank was source of leak to derail prosecution in connivance with Defense. Prosecution card is copy of an earlier set before the audit.
Enrile asked Garcia last week to bring original. he did not follow order. WHY?
Prosecution has to insist that Garcia brings original to prove the bank made a new set and that by itself is tampering of records or obstruction of justice. If new set of cards were could be proven by ink and paper forensics or fingerprints in the original.
After comparing the documents that would be the time speculation on source should be determined.
tristanism says
Alam kaya ng defense panel kung magkano talaga ang pera ni Renato Corona na nakatago sa banko or hinihiritan din sila ng “IN DUE TIME” ni Renato?
Baka nagkakagulatan sila hanggang ngayon.
maribeth says
Ms. Raisa, I just want to give some comments on the Annex A docs submitted by the Prosecution. I was a BSP examiner once, almost 20 years ago and I am now working in a company under the supervision of the BSP so I am more or less aware of the procedures involved in a BSP audit.
The PSB president stated that one of the audit findings of the Amlac examiner is that the signature card of CJ Corona was not marked PEP as required by the AMLA. I am almost sure that after the audit which is in November 2010, the bank marked the original signature card with PEP in compliance with the finding, otherwise they will be charged in the next audit with non-compliance of previous findings. I find it therefore strange that the bank president said that the original docs currently in their possession have no PEP markings. Unless a new set was made? Just asking.
Another thing, the AMLAC audit is not an investigation, it is just an audit to check if the bank is complying with the reportorial requirements of the AMLA, no more no less. There is no investigation as to whether the fund is ill gotten or what because that requires a court order.
I would just like to share my view because it seems that the senate impeachment panel is being waylaid, or waylaying themselves, to prepare for the striking out of the evidences on the bank accounts.
raissa says
Why do you think someone in Corona’s camp would want to leak this?
Pat says
I think after the audit the bank put in a new signature card with PEP marked on it that is why the Annex A signature card has PEP on it while the bank orig copy has no PEP on it. It is also why i think Sen. Koko asked if there is a new signature card
rose says
there are 2 original documents. it might be possible that Annex A is from the other original doc and not the one presented in the court by the PSB…??? they could have also recreated the docs….
baycas says
truth_seeker1961 says:
February 19, 2012 at 10:21 pm
WRONG!
Walang “reversal of roles” sa paniniwala at sa panloloko mo.
Sa lahat ng impeachment cases na nagdaan nananaig ang kagustuhan at kamalayan ng sambayanan…
Maraming sumuporta sa impeachment ni Erap.
Maraming hindi sumuporta sa impeachment ni Hilario Davide.
Marami ring sumuporta sa impeachment ni Merceditas Gutierrez.
Mulat ang taumbayan. Kung ano ang hinihingi ng kasalukuyang pagkakataon ang siyang paiiralin.
Uusigin ang ‘di karapat-dapat sa poder…pananatiliin naman sa puwesto ang minamahal pa at pinaniniwalaang tapat.
Pare Hoba says
@truthsicker
Correct, baycas! See truthsicker, this is how you think. Okay na? Malinaw na sa yo sana kasi
pag pinapareho mo na hindi mo iniisip, lolokohin na mga taong may masamang balak.
salamat baycas!.
MAC YAVELI says
PERSPECTIVE :IMPEACHMENT PLAYERS EXPECTATIONS AND REALITY CHECKS:
FOUR PERSONALITIES: CORONA, JIMENO, AND TUPAS/FARINAS
As the impeachment drama proceeds, would the players be aware that they are building a reputation through their actions. It’s interesting how one’s beliefs and values are reflected in one’s actions. The actions shown in public TV/internet will be hard to dispute in the future. Ginawa mo -ganon ka. The impeachment drama could be an opportunity for the players to show the best in their character which defines one’s destiny. So far here is what we have seen:
1. CHIEF JUSTICE CORONA:
EXPECTATIONS: As he initially publicly claimed, and as the highest officer of the Supreme Court , true to the traditions of great jurists Arellano, Concepcion and Teehankee, he was expected to be forthright, sober and let his records speak in exhibiting his innocence by fully cooperating with the Impeachment Court. In the tradition of the said honorable jurists of the past, he was expected to take a leave to free the institution from being affected in its functions while he prepare his defence. He was expected to be the utmost Jurist gentleman with great insight.
REALITY CHECK: He didn’t take a leave, his counsel kept on objecting in the introduction of evidence in trial and worst he wanted to stop the proceedings by filing a petition to stop proceedings in his own office which he heads. He then accused the Impeachment Court of being capable of being bribed. He publicly engage in verbal wars with the President “ala artista ng pelikulang tagalog”, using gutter language in the process. While not taking a leave he aroused Supreme court employee to rally for him.
2. CORONA DEFENSE TEAM: ATTY JIMENO
EXPECTATIONS: as the youngest member of the team , a faculty of UPLAw, and a recent Harvard Graduate, who signed a petition against Corona’s midnight appointment her presence was expected to put a sobering and moral factor in the defence team like allowing full cooperation for the Court in the common search for truth.
REALITY CHECK: She chose to join those who justify the non disclosure and confrontational approach of the team and lend her presence in the now infamous “100 million Bribe Try” accusation vs the Impeachment Court /Executive without showing any proof. This major event led the public to wonder if Mr. Corona’ and his team had any defense at all on Mr. Corona’s incredible wealth of close to a a hundred million pesos in a yearly salary of half a million pesos (600K pesos). To be young and with promising prospects, is this path worth it?.
3. NIEL TUPAS,RUDY FARINAS
EXPECTATIONS: As congressmen, they were lumped among the trapos. Physically unimpressive, Tupas looks more like a fresh college graduate than a congressman heading the Impeachment committee. Farinas was dismissed as an ex governor of Ilocos. Many thought their team wont be able to get votes necessary to impeach Corona. If Impeachment happens, many believed they could not last an hour with legal luminaries nor even show the hint of a dent in Corona’s armor of purity and clean image.
REALITY CHECK: What was apparent from Tupas, Farinas and team was the honesty and at some moment, hopelessness in their presentation especially with the continuing daily ritual of facing ridicules from Senator Judges especially Defensor and Defense cuevas. One could sense the great obstacles they were facing. The public, instead of condemning the ineptness of Tupas/Farinas took offence and considered the public ridicule as arrogance and condescending attitude by the Senators/ Defense Counsel. In a rare display of public sympathy never before seen in the history of the House of representatives, a groundswell of public support took shape, with unknown people volunteering information to Tupas and Farinas.The trapo image of Tupas/Farinas and the 188 just evaporated overnight. The more intense the ridicule and threats of legal action against Tupas/Farinas/188, the more public support it generated.leading his team to explode a big dent on Corona’s armor of purity and clean image.
chit navarro says
excellent analysis.
i am an ilocan and i am proud of Rudy Farinas
also with JPE (but was greatly disappointed with the TRO)
Anton Mendoza says
I am also an Ilocano and a kababayan of Congressman Rodolfo Castro Farinas.. The genuine ilocanos are proud of you.
Jack Biquick says
What’s liberating with the internet is you can replay the trial again and again and somehow observe the body language of these players and see how sincere and consistent they were in expressing their position. Joker then and now seem like 2 different persons. His credibility suffers if one is reminded of how he behaved in the last Impeachment. Sen Raul Roco’s piercing observation, clarity of language and sincerity simply came across as very refreshing in contrast with Santiago’s hysterical outbursts. Then and now, Santiago simply disappoints. Senator Enrile didnt make quite an impression in the last Impeachment. This Corona Impeachment could have been his greatest gift to the Filipino people if he voted for Independence from the Supreme Court. He lost his opportunity just as Joker, Defensor, Villar, Recto, Escudero, Pimentel III, Legarda, Honasan, Revilla Jr., Marcos Jr., Sotto III, and Estrada.
One is given a great moment and is defined by how you respond to it.
Yvonne says
One thing that seems to be forgotten in the discussions about the admissability of the bank documents in the ongoing impeachment trial of CJ Renato Corona is that we already have a historical precedent during the impeachment trial of former President Joseph Estrada that it is the sovereign will of the people that the evidence submitted in an impeachment trial shall be fair, truthful, and detached from legal technicalities. The rights of the people to know the truth in an impeachment trial is sovereign and transcends the individual rights of a person. The refusal of the defense counsel to open the second envelope under the shield of legal technicalities was seen as a blatant attempt to circumvent the will of the people; it unleashed the people’s anger that culminated in People Power II.
The Supreme Court, in administering the presidential oath of then Vice President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as President, in effect, affirmed that the rights of the people to know the truth cannot be circumvented by legal technicalities.
In fact then Chief Justice Davide went as far as changed the wording of the original draft of the presidential oath for Arroyo from “Acting President” to “President” thereby effectively closing the door for Estrada to legally reclaim the Presidency based on Estrada’s legal argument that his impeachment trial has not yet come to a conclusion.
intrigued says
@Yvonne -thanks for pointing this out.
pete says
if i remember it right, the second envelop was eventually opened and it contained what? (will somebody please tell me what the 2nd envelop contains). now, this will of the people, whos is the “people?” here. People Power II proved to be a dud because the Erap impeachment trial was misused by some elements to install GMA, and look what we got.
my take is that the rule of Law should not be superseded by what most call “will of the people?”. there are rules and Law and all must abide by it, specially in the ongoing impeachment trial of CJ Corona
Yvonne says
You missed the whole point.
The point is that the rights of the people to know the truth, under Article XI of the Constitution, cannot be circumvented by legal technicalities. And the rights of the people transcends the rights of an individual person.
And since we are on the subject of constitutional rights, let me add this:
The accused in an impeachment proceedings have specific rights guaranteed by the Constitution under Article XI. While an impeachment proceedings is ongoing the accused cannot invoke his rights to Article III.
Article III and Article XI provide rights that are separate, distinct, and are sometimes contradictory that is why they cannot be invoked at the same time.They address different principles of law.
Under Section XI a person has the right not to be accused more than once in a period of one year, he has the right to a 3/4 majority vote for a guilty verdict to be declared, and he has the right not to be levied a fine or imprisonment in a guity verdict.
In our traditional justice system, pursuant to Article III, a person can be accused as many times as it is necesary, he can be judged guilty by a simple majority vote, and he can be levied a fine or imprisonment when found guilty.
kontrapilo says
this is an impeachment trial, a trial without even a punishment to be meted to the accused, if found to be guilty merely a removal from office . How can this highly experience master of our laws can use all the technicalities just to circumvent the law.All we need is the truth, nothing but the truth and always but the truth . I believe the trial has to be ended soon, no need to go on, only one article of the impeachment is needed to remove CJ Corona, and the SALN is clear .CJ violated and did not disclosed the real truth of his SALN. tapos…
Maria says
Regarding the admissibility of the bank account records:
1. IF leakage from a private person (whether a bank employee or a person inside Corona’s camp or whoever) – ADMISSIBLE under People vs. Marti.
In the case of People v. Marti (193 SCRA 57; 1991), it was held that if a search is made at the behest or initiative of the proprietor of a private establishment for its own and private purposes and without the intervention of police authorities, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be invoked.
2. IF leakage came from a government agency like BSP – ADMISSIBLE under Estrada vs. Sandiganyan [G.R. Nos. 157294-95 November 30, 2006] (thanks to Baycas for the lead):
“Petitioner’s attempt to make the exclusionary rule applicable to the instant case fails. R.A. 1405, it bears noting, nowhere provides that an unlawful examination of bank accounts shall render the evidence obtained therefrom inadmissible in evidence. Section 5 of R.A. 1405 only states that “[a]ny violation of this law will subject the offender upon conviction, to an imprisonment of not more than five years or a fine of not more than twenty thousand pesos or both, in the discretion of the court.”
Maria says
Sorry, it’s Ejercito v. Sandiganbayan (not Estrada v. Sandiganbayan):
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/157294-95.htm
Yvonne says
The fundamental issue at hand is whether the strict rules on evidence in criminal proceedings shall be used in an impeachment process that is more akin to an administrative proceeding.
The answer should be NO. The impeachment process should not have any semblance, or color, of a criminal proceeding – otherwise in the event of a guilty verdict the accused can no longer be prosecuted for his crime as it will violate the principle of double jeopardy.
letlet says
What is the reason for joker arroyo’s turncoating? The answer lies in what he had accumulated when he worked for gloria arroyo and what he had lost ( positions, monies and perks attached to certain positions). As he is now a steadfast critic of the prosecutors, is he now revealing (in silence) his utmost loyalty to gloria arroyo.It means Corona’s success against his impeachment trial is also gloria arroyo’s success. Enrile. joker arroyo and other senators/ senator judges have their own agenda in wanting / not wanting corona to win. At the very bottom of this agenda, in the very small print is public interest / common tao. At the next election, the common tao should not vote these senators / senator judges who betray the public trust. Its high time to let these politicians know how badly they are treating us and that we will curtail this bad treatment. The voice of the masa should prevail.
Wandering Pinoy says
Your writing was just sobering . I wish you could say that in plain Tagalog para makuha ng ibang pinoy sa mga provinces where majority of pinoys are. I guess the Congressmen can help us here. The 188 can really help us spread the message we have here especially what you wrote. Tama ka at the bottom of most Senators agenda is the common tao in small print. Continue to air your views, you just have a great way of stating it as most writers here who have been bitten by the “raissavirus”. to you and our CPM mangkukulam-Johnny lin, baycas, balthazar and other amazing raissaviral agents, mabuhay kayo!
PS :
I wont call you Letlet, you’re not small, to me as with the rest of the raissaviral agents here, you have a big heart and a great vision for a better Philippines. you are Bigbig!
cheers..
clementejak says
@letlet,
It is our traditional traits that we owe loyalty to our benefactor, I feel sorry for the old man, he’s just like the old man Arturo Tolentino, the vp of Marcos who won’t step down when the marcos was toppled by peoples power insisting that he was duly elected by the people.