My Exclusive
By Raïssa Robles
Cash from a defense lawyer of Chief Justice Renato Corona could enable Demetrio Vicente to transfer to his name a valuable property that remains in the name of the chief magistrate’s wife 22 years after buying it from her.
Private lawyer Ramon Esguerra told me in an exclusive interview:
Personally, I’m willing to advance money to him (Vicente) if he asks my help. I hope you don’t misquote me.
Before I continue, I need to place Esguerra’s generous cash offer in context. His statement was in reply to my question whether he would be willing to give Vicente some form of legal aid to help him overcome his financial difficulties especially after his stroke.
Vicente, during his testimony this week, had said that his 3,114-square meter property remains to this day in Cristina Corona’s name because he did not have P200,000 in cash with which to pay the transfer tax and the accumulated penalties for its non-payment.
The prosecution insists that the sale was simulated and the lot really belongs to the Corona couple since it remains in the wife’s name to this day.
Among the grounds cited for Corona’s impeachment was that he did not list all the pieces of property he really owns in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) as required by the Constitution and the law.
I was surprised by Esguerra’s reply when he said:
If he (Vicente) asks my help – financial or otherwise or legal, I’m willing to help him. I have a few assistants who will help him do that. And I’m willing to advance the money for the transfer tax.
You write that because I’m known to be very, very helpful, that’s why I’m here with the Chief Justice (defending him).
Please note: I did my interview with Esguerra way before ABS-CBN uploaded the article of Ron Gagalac quoting Vicente as saying that he was thinking of selling the property and/or putting the title in his name. See – Corona’s cousin is selling Marikina property
Cash would not be a problem for Vicente
Repaying Atty Esguerra would not be a problem for Vicente, according to my architect-friend Bobbie Santos. Bobbie expressed to me his concern over the physical health and money difficulties of Vicente who, he pointed out, owns property worth P34 milllion but says he is too cash poor to afford the P200,000 to transfer tax to put the land in his name.
All he has to do, Bobbie told me, is to sell off 500 square meters of his 3,400 square meter property.
He calculated that at the prevailing market price in that area of P10,000 per square meter, instantly, Vicente will have P5 million in cash – or more than enough to pay the transfer tax as well as a fee to Atty Esguerra for the use of his money and legal services .
Bobbie noted that Vicente “can already sit pretty for the rest of his life,” given his monthly cash expenses of around P25,000 a month.
Using Bobbie’s calculation, I came up with the following extrapolation of Vicente’s cash requirements:
The balance of P4.8 million (minus payment of the P200,000 transfer tax) would be enough for Vicente’s living expenses for 192 months or 16 years, assuming he continues to spend P25,000 monthly. With this cash windfall, his daughter who is working overseas could even come home and be with him and maybe start a business.
Bobbie advised Vicente to do this quickly since the only legal document he holds – the Absolute Deed of Sale signed by him and Cristina Corona – has turned out to be not so legal after all. But more on that later.
Architect notes Vicente’s problem is common
Bobbie noted that Vicente’s predicament in not having the title to the Marikina property in his name happens more often than we think. This happens, for instance, when the title remains in the name of a deceased parent.
The problem is not lack of cash but lack of know how and perhaps procrastination.
The problem arises if any of the children decides to sell his “parcel” and in the process ends up selling the entire estate without the knowledge of his other siblings.
Bobbie said the aunt of his own wife Lennie experienced this and lost the land in a court case. This was despite the fact that his wife’s aunt was all the while paying the “amilyar” (realty tax) on the property for over 20 years and had receipts to show for it.
Therefore, Bobbie said, the best way Vicente can ensure that he can bequeath the rest of the land to his only child without any legal hitch is to generate some cash now and transfer the title to his name or perhaps his child’s name.
Architect wonders if Vicente can really transfer the title to his name even if he has the cash
Bobbie expressed the hope that Vicente is indeed the real owner of the property and not just a “dummy”.
I asked him whether one needed to be holding an Absolute Deed of Sale in order to build a house on a lot. Bobbie said that from his experience as an architect, local government units issue building permits even to those who only show proof of payment of the real property tax.
He said that insofar as the construction industry is concerned, a Deed of Sale was merely “a typewritten agreement between you and me. And in order for that to be binding on both, it has to be notarized by a notary public.”
He said that from his practical knowledge as an architect, this document only becomes critical should the original seller lay claim to it, or someone else is able to annotate the title with his own name without the real buyer’s consent.
SanTiago Katumbal says
Even a fool won’t believe to the statements of Mr. Demetrio Vicente…
Such a stupid rationale!!!… “wala ng pera daw para ibayad sa mga misc. fees”
It is just like buying an Audi A8 car, then keep it the garage since there is not enough money to buy fuel… Waaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh…
No sane person would do that at all…
johnny lin says
TOP TEN REASONS Corona family should watch him for SUICIDE PREVENTION:
1. Impeachment conviction is looming
2.Ombudsman asked AMLA for peso and dollar accounts of Corona
3. BIR investigating Coronas for tax evasion
4. Prosecutors accused Corona of malversation of public funds by imputing his allowances and emoluments were used beyond their intended purpose
5. Ill gotten wealth charge with Sandigan
6. Loss of dignity and integrity in public
7. Loss of family honor
8. Corona himself said his friends would abandon him after conviction
9. Possible disbarment upon conviction of crime
10. Lying on his biodata about school honors
baycas says
Suicide precaution…
http://www.propinoy.net/2012/03/10/suicide-watch/
pilosopongtacio says
Sir JL, puede po bang maghain ng Mistrial ang dipensa sa IC?
Mel says
‘maghain ng Mistrial ang dipensa’ kamo?
Sa International Criminal Court pupuwede magsaing duon. Lalo na’t papunta na si M Santiago bilang Judge ruon.
Ika nga, ‘Ikaw ang nagsaing, iba ang kumain’.
Part two o ang sequel ni R Corona. Impossible Dream?
Ang Chief Justice puwedeng pumunta sa International Court (for Justice) entablado para sila naman ang lukohin niya duon.
johnny lin says
I don’t think so. Or else Defense would have invoked it. Their petition to dismiss entire charges is probably the closest version to mistrial request.
arlon says
If Corona were to be convicted, will all the other charges (tax evasion, ill gotten wealth) still be pursued? SANA, para sa KULUNGAN din ang tuloy niya hindi lang dismissal.
raissa says
The only penalty for his conviction through impeachment is dismissal.
Like Erap, he will also be charged before the Ombudsman by various civic groups.
AUGUST C FERNANDO says
Dismissal. Tama na muna un. Sa dakong huli na ung mga plunder at kung anik-anik pa! Bantad na naman sa bayan ang mga kabulastugan ni Cheat Justice eh. BTW, somebody has shown that NOT ONE of Corona’s pronounced/resume’d academic “honors” is TRUE. Properly documented with copies of school graduation programs! SANTA MARIANG INA NG AWA! JESUS MARIA Y JOSEPH…! Patuwarin po ninyo ang taong ito! Ooopppsss, patawarin pala! ;)
Anton Mendoza says
Who do you think should go first, the dearly beloved wife or the CJ? Gentleman as he is(?) , the lady should go first. Beng beng
Anton Mendoza says
Nah .. Sana huwag na nilang hintayin na mangyari yan. The duo should humble themselves and tell the truth, the whole truth. Baka patawarin pa sila ng taongbayan.
Rodolfo R. Legrama says
Corona has no balls to commit suicide.To disprove that he his coward,he should take the witness stand.He is hiding behind his wife who is reportedly will take the witness stand.
Juanito Linsao says
The MORAL of this story: Don’t entrust your MONEY (stolen) to friends,like MARCOS FAMILY did to LUCIO TAN.you surely won’t get it back as IMELDA tried to.Patago na lang sa kamag-anak katulad ni CJ Corona sa kanyang Dumm….ooops…Pinsan.
baycas says
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/163579/witness-demetrio-vicente-keen-on-leaving-marikina-property-2
For My Angel AJ says
How much is one bonsai plant? Php 1000? 2000 plants x Php 1000 = Php 2million. But Php 1000 per plant is too low much more that he is being considered one of the best, bemedalled I think.
Sa akin it’s not just the lot that Corona still owns. He owns the bonsai business as well.
Rico Gloria says
Hi Raissa,
What other angles are you pursuing in this particular issue?
Is there more to the fact than the obvious scenarios:
1.If Sale was genuine. Vicente owned the lot. Corona made mistake in declaring lot in his SALN in 1992. minor issue.
2. If sale was fake. Corona still owned the lot. Why did he hid it in Vicente’s name? Why did he try to hid it from SALN? Both cases are unrelated to impeachment. Impeachment would presume “good faith” inheritance. Only issue impeachment will take-up is the non-declaration in SALN after 1992. But that wud be a minor issue.
So, what is the hidden angle here?
raissa says
coming soon.
Jherskie says
the lesser words you use, the more intriguing your promise :)
will be watching out for what is “coming soon” :D
raissa says
It’s up now.
Mafe says
yehey!
Mafe says
Oh, I thought its Part 2 =))
Read and subscribed.
Alizarin Viridia says
andrew lim says:
March 18, 2012 at 8:15 pm
“You can’t impute bad faith, you can’t impute malice to anyone who, in the execution of accounting forms, has followed the same pattern from beginning to the very end,’’ he said. “Yes, the figures may be incomplete, but was there bad faith? There’s none.”
—
oh yeah? if there’s OMMISSION, dishonesty and bad faith from the beginning, following the same pattern then there’s repeated OMISSION, dishonesty and bad faith over the years? WHAT DO YOUCALL THAT? Devil’s ingenuity?
Guy With A Blog says
I think Andrew was quoting one of Corona’s lawyers here, Alizarin. :) So, medyo expected, from the defense team.
andrew lim says
Yes, that was a quote from Mon Esguerra. Failed to put it there.
johnny lin says
Latest News Philippine Star: Defense wil present more witnesses
Defense is planningto present Lucita Cristi,clerk of court of QC RTC and Joseph Bisnar Sheriff IV of QC RTC branch 216. They will prove that the shares of Jose and Raymunda Basa do not belong to them anymore because they are owned now by Carla Castillo.
Cristi is going to testify that the court ordered the garnishment of Basa stocks in BGE because they lost their libel case to Cristina Corona. Biznar is going to testify that an auction of the stocks took place and Carla Castillo was winning bidder.
This is good because BGEI operation as a registered corporation will be exposed.
The reasons given that Carla Castillo is now the owner thru sheriff public auction has another picture of fraudulent transaction just basing on this newspaper report.
Public, be aware and look at the facts:
Cristina won a libel case against Basas and filed in QC RTC court a Writ of Execution from the Judgment by garnishment of BGEI stocks of Basas. Garnishment is taking the property from the owner by the Writ. The winner of the libel case, Cristina, should have been the new owner. Before she could sell the stocks she should have reported to SEC for proper listing being new corporate owner if BGE was still functioning legitimate corporation when garnishment was ordered.
Auction was not necessary because the order was garnishment, so the Sheriff has no business testifying. If the sheriff ordered the auction of BGE shares without transferring ownership to Cristina or Sheriff notifying SEC, that auction has all the markings of illegal sale and the Sheriff could be charged with abuse of authority and violating SEC rules on corporate stocks. Similarly, if the Court garnishment was done without properly serving the warrant to the Basas, the execution was also illegal. That is basic court rule.
No way Carla could acquire BGE stocks legally without Cristina registering with SEC how the stocks were distributed or sold. Why auction when theeasisest way is to transfer by inheritance if the stocks really belonged to Cristina by garnishment?
The witnesses could become defendants themselves as accomplices of fraudulent act in sale of stocks to Carla. It is like stock sale insider trading but the stocks were not legitimately reported to SEC.
Undoubtedly, CJ Corona was behind this manipulative scheme of Sheriff auction because of his experience in SGV but by hiding it from SEC legally, he committed a mistake. The only way the Sheriff was able to auction the stocks was Corona presented a FAKE SEC cerification that the stocks Cristina acquired by garnishment were reported to SEC. However, the SEC attested that the last activity BGE reported was in 1997 and the libel case of Cristina was decided in 1998.
Corona never dreamed in his lifetime that this matter would come up on an impeachment case against him. Sister Flory was right, God is final judge.
Defense, once again is inviting more questions to their witnesses rather than clearing up the issues. Bring them on!
SanTiago Katumbal says
#itsmorefuninthephilippines #alamna
funny as it may seem but their defense strategy is very very paradoxical…
their acts could be described in several ways:
* poking their own head
* shooting their own foot
* setting their own trap
* and the most favorite of all, “ginisa sa sariling mantika”
how foolish!!!…
bro, please open more cans of worms…
pilosopongtacio says
Kudos!!!!! Sir Johnny Lin
Conquermore says
You hit it again Johnny Lin. Great analysis.
baycas says
Here is the request for Subpoena Ad Testificandum et Duces Tecum from the defense panel dated March 13, 2012:
http://www.gov.ph/downloads/2012/03mar/20120313-Request-for-the-issuance-of-subpoena-Masangkay-Cristi-Clerk-of-court-RTC-QC-Branch-216.pdf
johnny lin says
writ of execution 2 (f) (g) Dated April 28, 2003 only 4 days after decision.
Nothing in this document mentions that SEC was involved in transfer of stocks.
I am not a lawyer but the dates and process are very suspicious.
SEC officer testified was dissolved as a registered corporationonteir record in 2003. According to SEC rules stocks have to be liquidated or distributed properly by corporation on compete dissolution as an entity, meaning all shares or stocks in that corporation are registered and could not be transferred or sold without reporting to SEC to continue using the name of corporation.
When a court orders garnishment thru sheriff, the garnished properties are remitted to the plaintiff on the Writ, in this case Cristina.the Writ does not authorize auction. If the property is land Cristina must take possession of the land, register it, transfer title, pay taxes before putting it on sale. If placed on public auction thru sheriff sale there must be a separate court order to auction garmished property. Nothing indicatedthere was a court order on this matter.
Since the garnished properties are shares in a corporation registered with SEC, Cristina must notify SEC in writing that she is new owners of certain amount of shares of BGE for proper registration of corporate ownership. I believe there are also rules in SEC when acquiring shares comprising large percentage in ownership of corporation. There is separate scrutiny or rules for this type of acquisition. Reember SEC said BGE was dissolve in 2003.
Going back to the subpoena to the sheriff 2(g), letter from Cristina to sheriif.
What is in that letter about?
If Shares were registered with SEC, why go to process of public auction? Since Cristina owned the shares if properly registered with SEC she could just transfer them to her children
Before public auction is scheduled, there must be publication in newspapers on this auction.
What is time difference between receipt of Cristina letter and Sheriff auction?
Was there a court order for the action with notification from SEC?
If the shares were not transferred and sheriff proceeded with public auction without court order, without SEC clearance, the shares still belonged to the Basas legally with SEC registration and their sale to Carla Castillo was illegal under SEC rules.
The reason shares and corporate ownership of stocks are registered withis precisely to avoid illegal transfers without registration with SEC. Imagine if stock certificates are being sold all over the world without proper registration, crime syndicates and terrorists could come easily be the legal owners by layering the sales the way this sale to Carla was consummated.
Cristina may thinkit owns BGE by the court order but without properly registering with SEC and transferring the shares thru illegal public auction technically the shares still belonged to the Basas.
If there was really a court order, were the Basas legally served the warrant on the Writ?
The writ might be illegally obtained too.
Too many questions on this transaction ending in Carla’s name. Corona might have used his power to pressure the judge on the Writ and the Sheriff on the auction.
Another legal aspect on judgments. The Statute of Limitation. The case Decision was 2001. A writ has expiration date. Another order of judgment written in 2003. Were the Basas properly served? Were they given by the court to appeal judgement. This last judgment, Writ was ordered 4 days after order on judgent unlike in 2001.
Very suspicious action by the Judge and Sheriff. Could be ante dated documents again.
I am gonna die says
That’s comforting, but does this mean that corona will (even if not valid) present some evidence for his wife’s major ownership of BGE?
But I thought BASA people said they had no idea concerning the transfer of ownership.
johnny lin says
They had no idea because they were not served the warrant properly, there was no official publication that they were not responding to the service warrant.
In law, if the warrant could not be served the plaintiff is obligated to publish in natinal newspapers the warrant order and wait for certain months before the Writ is finalized.
Same thing with Sheriif sale thru public auction, the sheriff has to publicized and served to Basas. Definitely the shares were not transferred to Cristina because she did not register with SEC probably to avoid paying fees and taxes.
Definitely the public auction from all indication was illegal because SEC was not involved. The other possibility was the shares were garnished by the sheriff, Cristina did not redeem from Sheriff per their illegal arrangement. Then the shares were sold in public auction because THE LETTER contained certification from Cristina as Administrator that the shares were abandoned or the registration was properly recorded in BGE corporation already and the Letter has that fake registration. Again that would be illegal on Cristina but the Sheriff has no option except to auction because he has no inkling the papers were fraudulent.
Sheriff has authorities to sell by public auction unclaimed garnished properties like jewelries, cars, furnitures, appliances, etc. They are material properties governed only by regular ownership. Corporate shares and stocks are different, they are under strict regulation from SEC. Check Philippine Law Journal page 565-566 about restriction on stock certificates.
Maria says
Let us not forget two things about the libel case:
1. There was an acquittal in favor of 3 of the Basas namely, Betsy, Flor and Cecilia. There was a guilty verdict only against 2 Basas, i.e. Jose and Randy. Hence, it is impossible for there to be a public auction for the shares held by the 3 Basas. As a consequence, it is impossible for Carla Corona to get full ownership over their shares.
2. The Court of Appeals reduced the fine of the Basas to 6,000 pesos each or 12,000 pesos total. There must be some irregularity (to say the very least) if the BGEI shares held by Jose and Randy were sold for only 12,000 pesos. Note that that the BGEI is the owner of a piece of property worth 34 Million Pesos. It is shocking to the senses that the shares over this multi-million company were sold for only 12,000 pesos.
johnny lin says
Am not familiar with ruling but was speculating the plausability of Carla getting shares of Jose and Randy Basas based on subpoena and newspaper.
Cecilia was name of Cristina mother so she was not in libel case besides she was dead already. Betsy deceased, flory still alive. Both are nuns. That is the reason Esguerra said Cristina owns 90% BGE, still how?
Let us see what is in that Cristina letter dated August 2003.
Rene-Ipil says
According to Mang Indo, Cristina’s mother is Asuncion Basa, nicknamed Monina.
percy1007 says
From Ms. Raissa’s write-up on letter of Jose Basa to JBC:
In 1997, Manila RTC after finding Jose and Randy Basa guilty of libel, they were sentenced to 4 mos to 2 years in jail and P700,000 payment to Cristina Corona.
In 2005, the Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict but changed jail sentence to a fine of P6,000 each.
In Jose Basa’s letter, he wrote that Mario Basa, Cecilia Basa, Sis Flor Basa and Sis Concepcion Basa sold their shares to him.
Could it be that a quid pro quo was agreed to with the jail sentence and P700k for Jose and Randy Basa’s shares in BGEI? Mrs. Randy Basa should ne brought to testify.
percy1007 says
Was it that Jose Basa and Randy Basa were threatened with arrest and imprisonment in the libel case so they agreed to whatever the Corona wanted?
And he wrote the JBC opposing Corona as justice of the SC as a result of this bad experience. Aral kay Marcos si Corona.
percy1007 says
If the defense will present evidence on BGEI ownership, prosecution should bring in Ana’s mother Randy Basa to the stand. She is a stockholder in her own right and with direct involvement on the estafa and libel cases. If there is a pending arrest warrant, can’t the senate IC issue a suspension of the warrant and provide protection in the interest of justice.
percy1007 says
We still don’t know how many shares each stockholder owns since in the letter to the JBC, Jose Basa said he is the majority stockholder. He may have the proxies of the other stockholders.
Until we have the incorporation papers, we don’t know how many did Jose and Randy Basa owns and which supposedly ended up with Carla Corona.
I am gonna die says
A question to Raissa:
Do you and your husband together make enough money for a comfortable life?
If not, perhaps you can set up a “DONATION” button via PayPal.
I think enough of us want to support you as you continue to expose corrupt basTURDS.
raissa says
I’ll think about about it :)
I am gonna die says
It may not be for your personal expenses, but it may help you with your business expenses.
Finding evidence requires money (e.g., taxi fares, phone calls, etc.).
Ernie Delfin says
I agree with you, I am gonna die says! Now that I was told to stop eating meat due to my health, I can save some money and altho not much, I can also share some $$$ to RR Investigative Journalism Fund (RRIJF)… RR, do it! And whenever you are in Southern Calif. speak before our groups and we pass the hat… http://www.rotaryeclubGlobalKalingaD3780.org
raissa says
I’ll think about it.
I’ll ask one of my former editors, whom I respect, his opinion. His name is Vergel Santos.
sakuragirl says
Maybe you can set up a Paypal account too.
Dimasalang says
my unsolicited one cent advice Mam Raissa.
With due respect to “I am gonna die”, the intention is good and worth considering. however, this Plaza Miranda is now in the limelight and any hint of indiscretion will be bloated and highlighted by the force of darkness. Let us avoid anything that will give the other side a bullet to shoot us. Any kind of financial solicitation will be easily misinterpreted to be used to their advantage in discrediting this worthy endevour.
raissa says
True.
I am gonna die says
Frankly,
“the force of darkness” has already made up its mind about Raissa, so I think the best thing to do is to provide her with more support.
NOT having a donation button is not going to make this evil less evil.
There are too few people like Raissa, and too many people piss me off.
So I want to do something by supporting people like Raissa.
davide says
then if that will be the case use advertisements, more of it which can help this blog to be more prosperous. at least it will can help. ex sulit.com, olx.com or advertisers that will make you some points correct me if am wrong. in a way we the readers will surely click on those from time to time and maybe will be interested to by online if need arises. Alan must have an idea of this scenario???
Maria says
I agree with you, davide.
In 2005, a student named Alex Tew conceived an idea where he sold pixel space on his website for $1 to help pay for his education. He raised a total gross income of 1 Million dollars.
Here’s a write up about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Million_Dollar_Homepage
[Btw, Raissa, this is the link I mentioned a few comments ago.]
I was thinking that perhaps a similar model can be used or adopted for Raissa’s blog where we, the readers or even straightforward advertisers can buy pixel space on the blog. Of course the optimal pricing will have to be studied.
Whenever I visit Raissa’s blog, I see Agoda and Rappler are consistent advertisers. Well we can’t afford the huge ad space they’ve bought but perhaps we can do it ala sari-sari store and buy “tingi-tingi” ad space.
Elena Lemi says
I agree with you guys. At least we help in order to ferret out the truth of some corrupt officials.
Odadsoid says
kahit na sa paanong paraan, sama ako!
this blog’s Plaza Miranda might make a difference.
like, electing the next president!
or, making SALN accessible on the web.
Conquermore says
I second the motion from Japan
Rochie says
Agree!
Kim says
yes, it would be least we can do ….
Rolly says
I agree with Dimasalang.
Money corrupts.
baycas says
Here is the Compliance List of Witnesses and Documentary Evidence that was prepared by the defense panel and submitted on January 31, 2012.
http://www.gov.ph/downloads/2012/01jan/20120131-Compliance-list-of-witnesses-defense.pdf
baycas says
Windfall?
Estafa case against Cristina Corona: Won
Two libel cases against spouses Jose and Raymunda Basa: Won
SEC case against Jose Basa et al as New Board of BGEI: Won
Public auction of BGEI property with Carla Corona Castillo bidding: Won
They are the winningest family of winners.
At least one, has doubt…
http://globalbalita.com/corona-may-have-used-power-for-wife/
I say, legal truth may not necessarily be the actual truth.
In the same breath, what is legal may not necessarily be ethical.
johnny lin says
@baycas
“SEC case against Jose Basa et al as New Board of BGE -won”
What year was that?
Why would SEC get involved in creating new board in a private corporation?
What was the SEC case about?
According to SEC the last report on activities of BGE was in 1997 and in 2003, classified as dissolve for non reporting annulally for at least 5 yrs.
baycas says
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/147573/basa-guidote-coronas-feuding-since-89
johnny lin says
@ baycas
I think that case was about composition of officers and administration of BGE, not about ownership perse.
Vicente Roco was stockholder and Administrator. Upon his death he delegated to Cristina Administration job without corporate officers approval. That was the start of their feud when Basas foled estafa against Cristina for not reporting annual corporate income and distribution. Cristina countersued by libel because estafa charge was published in paper.
Cristina won in libel but she asked for court writ to execute judgment in 2003 only.
Continuation of my answer below, on this Writ and Auction of shares.
baycas says
Nonetheless, Cristina may still be perceived to have won because she retained the reins of the company.
johnny lin says
Thats true. Possession matters until proven otherwise.
Big case regarding this matter is Forbes or Dasmarinas House of Ricardo Silverio that was sold by his son Dante to Inigo Zobel before the court awarded to Ricardo
Guy With A Blog says
Father Bernas said the same thing, in essence, and to paraphrase: the law is what the SC says the law is, until it changes its mind. That, to me, means a judge wields enormous power – despite being called the “weakest” of the three branches – because what a judge, or in the case of Corona, the SC, says becomes the law, and it follows it becomes “right”. In a legal sense.
I have maintained the same stance as you Judge Baycas: Just because something is legal does not make it right, ethical or moral.
Guy With A Blog says
I caught a portion of Karen Davila’s Headstart awhile ago, she had the dean (law) for UST in today’s program, and anyone who saw it, correct me if I’m wrong, but he left the impression that Corona has explained his land properties in a satisfactory manner based on last week’s defense run.
I could not believe what he was saying – as this tthread here will prove, more questions surfaced from the “land revelations”, chief of which is, why are the land titles in Cristina’s name when they were already sold – until it hit me that UST conferred the doctorate degree on Corona without a dissertation – and with honors – and claimed it was using its academic right to waive that requirement.
I am gonna die says
Law schools in the philippines are the breeding ground for the future corrupt.
Think about it. A smart, straight lawyer has NO way to make a decent living (a car, a house, etc.). Only corruption gives him that.
This is because the system is built this way.
More importantly, most law students are from corrupt families…to keep their ill-gotten wealth.
Rule of law? My aZZZ.
Dimasalang says
“Law schools in the philippines are the breeding ground for the future corrupt.”
“More importantly, most law students are from corrupt families…to keep their ill-gotten wealth.’
Aray ko naman, don’t make naman this sweeping generalization, just like any institution the bar and the bench are not immune to corruption and the like. Mayruon pa naman sigurong mga honest at worthy people who deserve to be called attorney.
I am gonna die says
If IBP, judges at all levels of the judiciary, women’s justice league, and deans of law schools support thief justice like this, I think I can safely make this generalization.
Generalization, by definition, is a generalization, which means that there are always a few exceptions. But I think there are too few…not even 1%.
We say AIDS/HIV is not curable. But do you know that 1% of people infected with HIV get CURED?!
But we generalize and say it is not curable because this 1% is an exception, not the rule.
I think the same applies to our country’s judiciary and lawyers, including future lawyers in law schools today.
gloriadtomas says
@i am gonna die
question: what is 500 dead lawyers in the bottom of the ocean?
answer: a good start!
kidding aside, tama si @dimasalang: your observation is a “sweeping generalization.” lawyering, worldwide, has gotten such a bad rap that lawyers in general are universally considered as untrustworthy, prone to lying and cheating, and don’t always play fair. @i am gonna die’s sentiments are understandable but premised wrong. it is a personal choice to be corrupt or dishonest, whether you are a priest, a lawyer, a politician, or a doctor. it is not the profession, per se, that’s corrupt or prone to corruption.
because social order is essentially necessary in any civilized society and because social order is premised on communal rules of behaviour or, in other words, law, then lawyers are indispensable to social order. without lawyers there will be anarchy (Somalia is a good example, where there are no functioning courts of law). even china and russia, being socialist states, have burgeoning law offices where lawyers have lucrative law practice, because they, too, have their own complex laws.
lawyers are the defenders of rights conferred under the law. law, even from the times of Moses, is of such an immense intricacy that individuals especially trained in it are necessary to define rights and obligations created under it. love them or hate them, lawyers are going to be around for a long, long time, like it or not.
johnny lin says
Dean was correct, but Prosecution and Register od Deeds inMarikina were also correct.
To avoid confusion, Start with the prmise.
Prosecution presented Register of Deed evidencethat Marikina lots were registered to Cristina. They were correct because it was Vicente fault. He did not transfer title after buying them in 1990.
Corona proved thru Vicente he sold the lots in 1990.
Questions lingering:
Was the sale true or fake? As far as impeachment court is concerned, it is the problem of Vicente andCristina. Prosecution might want to prove it is fake sale, but it is really immaterial because land was inheritance of Cristina, meaning legally acquired.
Corona has a problem to answer in court: why did he list in his 1992 SALN the land as property when he was a witness it was sold in 1990.
The land was not the problem, it’s entry in the SALN is. So the Dean is correct.
I am gonna die says
The commenter seems like he was referring to PROPERTIES, not just the vincent property.
If so, the dean is absolutely incorrect.
johnny lin says
That is Land Properties. The only testimony on Land was by Vicente.
pelang says
there is an article in the inquirer.net that mentioned that Vicente is leaving his property (which still in Cristina Corona’s name) and wants to sell it for 27.1 Million Pesos or something because according to him the real estate tax that he pays is 35,000. Pesos a year which is too much. He is looking for a broker who would sell these lots for him. What is your take on this? Don’t forget to read the comments.
Guy With A Blog says
This clarifies a lot, Johnny. :) I hope the prosecution is reading this blog and all the comments so they can be armed with things they might have missed out to use as counter argments.
I’m also assuming, in response to your question, why this lot was included in the SALN when it was already sold, they will rehash “not in bad faith” as their standard reply. That’s one line they keep harping lately, walang malice, in good faith, walang bad faith.
she7374 says
tanong ko lang po. may pinakita na receipts ng realty tax. meron po ba pinakitang proof of payment sa pag purchase ng property?
raissa says
Wala. Only Deed of Absolute Sale.
No receipt from Cristina Corona.
no bank documentation for the issuance of the manager’s check for the payment of the Marikina property. Only the Deed of Absolute Sale is the proof, which turned out to be fake.
she7374 says
I hope the prosecutors will probe into this. If the Defense could not show proof of payment, aside from the fake notary public, this is another reason to believe that the sale was really simulated. Madali lang naman gumawa ng Deed of Absolute Sale.
@raissa: BTW, thanks for doing a great job.
sakuragirl says
Doesn’t the conferment say a lot about the standards of the UST School of Law? Occasionally, doctorate degrees are conferred on an honorary basis. If Corona indeed earned his credits (insofar as other requirements are concerned), what is their basis however for awarding the PhD “with honors” without a dissertation? To simply say that it is their academic right to waive the requirement of a dissertation is revealing in itself. If the award was intended to be honorary in the first place, then the Dean should have simply cited Corona’s supposed accomplishments which redounded to the public good, nationally or internationally, as what reputable universities all over the world do.
austin tx says
That PhD looked like it was a bribe. Why did Corona not see it as such?
Maria says
My sense of Dean Divina is that he is playing safe. Just in case CJ Corona will be acquitted. He can then claim that he gave favorable legal analyses in favor of Corona. He also has his law firm, Divina and Uy Law office, to protect as well even in spite of his status as an academician.
One thing that the frustrates me is that the defense appears to be winning in convincing the public that the SALN is a very difficult and complex document to accomplish. Is it? Just look at the SALNs of Corona and Teddy Casino here in Raissa’s blog. I find it very straightforward. If the SALN asks for the information then you have to put it, SIMPLE AS THAT. All the information required are MANDATORY. There is no multiple choice. There is no information that is optional. Nothing therein states that foreign currency are exempt from SALN declaration. I believe a person of average intelligence, much more a Chief Justice, should be able to understand the SALN and fill it up accordingly.
jorgebernas says
Ha ha ha ha, napakaraming mga nagtatanggol sa mga taong hindi naman karapatdapat, Sayang ang mga talino nitong dean of UST…..Tse tse tse… Nakakahiya na kayo at Nakakadiri…
baycas says
First of all, I am flattered by the address “Judge”.
I am, in no way, a judge or a former judge.
Modesty aside, I was once called a “justice” which I have earned through my discussion with friends at Filipino Voices (@jcc is one of them; oh, Dean Jorge Bocobo too! He was actually the one who coined “Justice Baycas”) on the topic “Presumption of Innocence”.
I am just like everyone here who believes in the freedom of speech. That is all there is to it.
May i request readers (members of the Court of Public Opinion) to just address me as “baycas”. We are all equals here.
Thanks for believing in me.
—–
I believe this is relevant…
CBC says:
March 19, 2012 at 3:51 am
A lawyer is duty-bound TO DEFEND whoever he engaged in a lawyer-client relationship.
All disclosures (testimonials/documentary) must be strictly confidential FOREVER and privileged information will never be admissible in court. (Of course, there may be some exceptions to the rule.)
If anyone is fond of movies, I highly recommend “And Justice for All”. Also an Al Pacino-starrer.
CBC, the movie you recalled is a supernatural movie. “And Justice for All” may happen in real life. Thanks for asking.
Here is an IMDB link…watch out for spoilers!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078718/
I am gonna die says
“A lawyer is duty-bound TO DEFEND whoever he engaged in a lawyer-client relationship.”
But this is ONLY as long as they continue to represent the client; they can always resign…IF they are not corrupt themselves.
Maria says
That being said, every lawyer is bound by the lawyers’ oath. Hence, even in the defense of his clients, a lawyer cannot violate the law and commit falsities.
Here is the lawyers’ oath:
I remember in law school, someone asked CBC’s question, “what if your client is guilty?” Our professor, a lawyer I admire even to this day (note: I have lost my admiration for many law professors, especially because of these impeachment proceedings) replied: “We cannot fabricate evidence for him or tell him to lie. On the other hand, we have a duty to defend. The only thing we can do is ensure that he has due process of law.”
Dimasalang says
Code of Professional Responsibility Rule 14.01 states
“A layer shall not decline to represent a person solely on account of the latter’s sex. creed or status in life, or because of his own opinion regarding the guilt of said person.”
a lawyer who will decline the case will be acting like a judge which obviously he is not. it is his duty to see to it that justice will be served by all means legally debatable and that his client will not be denied his day in court.
gloriadtomas says
dagdag ko lang po kay CBC:
kasi po kahit “guilty” ang isang kliyente sa mata ng kanyang abogado, kailangan pa rin pong idepensa ng abogado, kung tinanggap niya ang kaso, dahil ang abogado ay isang opisyal ng hukuman at isang propesyonal sa batas at dahil sa:
1. ang isang akusado ay mayroong mga karapatan sa batas na kailangang ipaglaban at hindi pwedeng isawalang-bahala, gaya ng karapatang pang-tao, tamang trato sa ilalim ng batas, at maraming iba pa;
2. ang isang akusado ay inosente sa mata ng batas at kung walang tamang ebidensya ay dapat mapawalang-sala ayon din sa batas, dahil ang batas ang dapat masunod sa lahat ng pagkakataon hindi ang personal na paniniwala ng sinuman maging ang abogado ng nasasakdal;
3. walang pananagutan sa batas ang isang abogado na magtatanggol sa isang akusado na alam nyang guilty at wala ring makakapilit sa kanya na tumestigo laban sa kliyente niyang yun; at
4. ang batas at ang katotohanan ay hindi pareho; layon ng batas na hanapin ang katotohanan subalit ang katotohanan na makikita ng batas sa maraming pagkakataon ay katotohanang ayon sa mata ng batas lamang at hindi nangangahulugan ng buo at purong katotohanan, kaya mayroong nakukulong na inosente at nakakalayang totoong nagkasala.
CBC says
Thanks to all who took time to answer my question. The people of OPM are the best! ;D
Sui Generis III says
Here is the speech delivered by Chief Justice Renato Corona before the Philippine Women Judges Association during its convention on 15 March 2012 at the Manila Hotel.
——————–
First of all I want to greet everyone of you Happy Women’s Month. International Women’s Month, as we all know, is observed around the world every March and this morning’s event bespeaks of the great strides our country has made in narrowing the gap between men and women. Obviously, the [Philippine Women Judges Association] has spent and has labored many long hours for the full and genuine integration of women in society. It is, therefore, fitting that we pay tribute to your Founding President, Justice Amor Melencio-Herrera, for providing an avenue for women judges in thePhilippinesto exchange views in the hope of advancing and implementing women’s rights and welfare. For 25 years, you have not only taken pro-active steps in ensuring that legal issues concerning women are placed in the forefront, thereby making the Judiciary gender responsive but you have also advocated that women can be active catalysts in the administration of justice. This is not surprising.
Statistics and women lawyers show that more women than men have made it in the Top Ten in the last 12 years: 71 females against 59 males from 2000-2011. In the recently released bar examinations, there were six women in the top 10 (Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9). In 2007, 32% of the total incumbent judges in the first and second level courts including Sharia courts were women and this increased to 34% in 2010. In the Supreme Court from a high of 5 out 15 justices, we now have 3 incumbent lady justices. Indeed, our women magistrates have come a long way since Cecilia Muñoz-Palma became the first women judge of the court of first instance more than 60 years ago and the first female justice of the Supreme Court almost 40 years ago, 8 years in fact earlier than the appointment of the first woman justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. In addition, our women judges, according to Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, have brought the understanding of a woman to the Court but they have likewise not shied from discussing the burning issues of day.
As magistrates, we all know that the credibility of our courts is largely dependent on our independence. Fear has no place in our hearts. After all, our only must-have is a balm of a good conscience where we dispense justice correctly and administer it in an orderly fashion. Justice can only be effective if those who seek it from our courts leave our courts will full satisfaction that justice has been served and done. The task of maintaining the respect of the people in constitutionalism and the rule of law is a responsibility we all share in the three departments of government: the executive, the legislative and the judicial. However, recent events point out that the nation is now in great peril of teetering toward one-man rule, where executive action aims to shield, to shackle judicial independence, undermine the rule of all and erode the systems of governance, particularly the principle and the mechanism of checks and balances.
The PWJA’s theme this year notably emphasizes its track record in upholding for a quarter of a century now the three basic tenets of constitutional democracy guaranteeing equality for one and all and in all spheres, namely the preservation and advancement of judicial independence, the rule of law and women’s rights. By judicial independence we strengthen the fundamental doctrines of separation and equality of powers of the three great branches of government. Through the rule of law we level the field for everyone, so that no person regardless of status, rank, power, wealth or privilege is and will ever be above but merely be subservient to the law. Lastly, in advancing women’s rights, we calibrate the skills of justice equally for both genders, thereby ensuring mutual affection, protection, cooperation, complementarity and support, not only for the care of our own progenies within our individual households but also for the growth and development of our country and better evolution of our human race as a whole.
Sadly, this notable trend of the basic foundations and pillars of modern Philippine democratic society are being undermined by transient power holders of the government who are solely mandated and obliged to preserved and implement them. We are fighting for judicial independence to shield the Judiciary from improper influence and pressure in our review of any grave abuse of discretion committed by any unit or agency of the Philippine government, as well as settling disputes between and among private and public groups, invested groups. Necessarily, the Judiciary must be insulated from political pressures, popularity surveys, lobbyists, private partisan interests, undue influence and outright coercion from the executive or legislative departments or from major private stakeholders who are advancing their own shared mutual, socio-political and economic interests. Therefore, even if the executive and legislative departments are constitutionally-mandated within certain reasonable authorities and privileges guaranteeing their balance of power with the Judiciary, the Philippine Constitution did not leave to the whimsical discretion of the transitory political power holders the implementation and preservation of judicial independence.
Every crisis spawns an opportunity. I mentioned earlier Justice Cecilia Muñoz-Palma. Who would have though that two years into her designation to the High Court or appointment to the High Court, Justice Palma would staunchly oppose the Martial Law government of her appointer. Having said this, we are glad that, just like the Martial Law years we have in our midst our 21st century Cecilia Muñoz-Palmas in the persons of our women judges spearheaded by Justice Teresita Leonardo de Castro, who have all were raised their voices in expressing their unequivocal support to the supremacy of the Constitution and the judicial independence of the Supreme Court. Let me, therefore, take this opportunity to express my sincerest appreciation for the PWJA for joining me in this fight for the independence of the Judiciary.
Thank you for standing by the side of the Court. Thank you for upholding the rule of law. Thank you for keeping up the fight. Thank you for keeping up the faith.
We shall remain firm and we shall remain steadfast. May the Almighty God guide us and give us fortitude as we continue our quest for truth and justice and the preservation of the institution we all love.
Thank you and a good day to all of you.
raissa says
Thanks for this.
Georgie Girl says
The Defense: A Stuttering Start
A nice piece by Leo Alejandrino
http://leoalejandrino.wordpress.com/2012/03/19/the-defense-a-stuttering-start/
Odadsoid says
thank you for the link . . .
johnny lin says
ABS CBN NEWS: Defense to present character witness for Corona
What for? Another delaying tactic of Defense. Impeachment was about Action on SALN, TRO on GMA. Enrile must disallow witness for another boring testimony without relevance to charges. Defense can put INC head Eddie Manalo or Archbishop Cruz but their testimonies don’t have any weight on the charges.
Prosecution must ask Sister Flory and Ana Basa to be present in Senate when Sheriff and QC clerk of court will testify.
gloriadtomas says
Esguerra treading in dangerous grounds. For a lawyer to be financially interested (whether to acquire or have vested interest, directly, or indirectly as in pauutangin ng pera to pay for land taxes or registration) in a client’s property, or a witness’ property that may be subject matter of future legal action as a consequence of another legal action which lawyer is involved in as an attorney (such as in Corona’s impeachment), could (and I say ‘COULD”) be unethical. Although inherited by Cristina, Marikina property could have been placed in a dummy’s name to make it appear that Coronas were able to raise funds by selling it and used those funds to buy other property. Property could be seized by government in the future for a number of reasons, including satisfaction of fees/fines that might be imposed on Corona if successfuly prosecuted for graft. What Esguerra is then proposing is what every lawyer in his or her right mind should avoid, especially with a public announcement like that.
Query: What if Vicente cannot repay Esguerra assuming loan pushed through?
Ans. Esguerra can technically sue Vicente and go after Marikina lot, or proceeds thereof.
Follow up query: What is wrong with Esguerra suing Vicente for non-payment of loan?
Ans. Not a whole lot. But Vicente can technically allege Esguerra took advantage of him (Vicente), induced him into accepting the loan for his (Esguerra’s) selfish motives (earn good interest, or perhaps thinking property could end up being used to pay for loan, with Esguerra bidding at auction, or good publicity as lawyer, etc.) and that he accepted the loan under vitiated consent because Esguerra exercised strong influence on him as lawyer. If proven, lawyer could be sanctioned by IBP, even disbarred if egregious circumstances of loan are present.
That is why as a lawyer you do not want to personally mess with your client’s or witness’ property, one way or the other. That is not saying that lawyers don’t do that. On the contrary, I know a lot of lawyers doing that. Often. Unfortunately. But then, perhaps they are not as dense as Esguerra.
johnny lin says
Agree
Kim says
It’s not pro bono afterall then, or is there such an animal – he’ll offer his services after the trial and milk it for what it’s worth and yea, he won’t run out of more pro bono Corona cases after the trial. In fact he can spend the rest of his life defending Corona and relatives. He has his work cut out for him.
Guy With A Blog says
An acquaintance of mine has commented why I post so many articles against Corona in my Facebook wall – including your posts, Raissa, which are always perceived by the pro-Corona side as “yellow journalism”.
For the record, this is why:
“The power of one’s character confers on its’ holder a power that is unlike one wielded by the sword (violence, in its craven form) or the purse (bribery, in its craven form). Its authority is derived from moral ascendancy: doing what is right despite the throngs of people who choose to do wrong. It strives to be ethical despite all the temptations abounding all of us.
This is where the real strength of the judiciary lies: its character, its moral uprightness, its ethical persuasions. That when a judge or a court speaks, no one can cast even a sliver of doubt, not even a smidgin, that someone, somehow, is being unfairly treated.
To not use sword and purse but to still command respect and authority.
That is not weakness at all.
That is true strength.”
Sana malinaw kung bakit napakataas ng hinahanap ko sa isang Punong Mahistrado.
raissa says
Joey, thank you for voicing what I feel.
Guy With A Blog says
I think, given the many posts and responses in your blog, there are many of us who feel this way. :)
rene-ipil says
Right. And many, many more.
connie chang says
YES, we too.
edwin binalla says
yes, a lot more.
@Guy With a Blog: can I copy your “quote” and acknowledge my source?
edwin says
@Guy With a Blog: can I copy your “quote” and acknowledge my source?
idde says
ditto for me!
@guy with a blog:
very good. like very much! superbly expressed!
Guy With A Blog says
Thank you, Idde. I got so frustrated when the person asked me this question, which really strikes at the core of why we find the acts of the Chief Justice questionable: honesty, integrity, transparency, his acts have been characterized by a lack of these. It’s all about subterfuge, transferring titles left and right, sudden withdrawals from bank accounts, etc.
idde says
I feel the same way. It is especially frustrating when i see or hear people who just dream of having a piece of the corruption pie instead of striving to help alleviate it. But we are doing the best we can and i hope it will be enough.
Guy With A Blog says
I think, Idde, that is the dangerous part of corruption being so pervasive: It’s become accepted, to the point that even the defense lawyers say the same thing already – when Corona was hit for not putting acquisition costs in the SALN, they immediately reacted “does anyone fill in their SALN correctly?” Even Sen. Recto said the same thing in his ANC interview.
In effect, what they’re saying is, lahat naman gumagawa nyan, so ok na.
I expect more from someone who holds the position of Chief Justice. So to those who think I’m being “unreasonable”, tough. That’s the way I’m wired.
Kim says
You’re wired just right, others have theirs screwed or do not care at all. tsk tsk
Elena Lemi says
Raissa : We are discussing the problem of Vicente and SALN here. Had anyone check after the dale of CJ’s property to his daughter (Castillos) for 18M, did he put it in his SALN as another income? I don’t remember the year when it’s sold. Can you check that please? Thank you.
Havemus says
He used the money to buy another condo as i understand it. that would not appear in the saln. I think people fail to understand that SALN is not an earnings report but your estimated value at the end of each year. Hope you are guided accordingly.
Teresa says
Yes, the property that he sold will no longer appear in his SALN, but it should be
reported this way:
If he used the money to buy another condo, ) Must appear in his SALN
then that new condo )
or
If he did not buy a new condo, the proceeds )
of sale of the property, (CASH) ) Must appear in his SALN
letlet says
Count me in this idea / plan of donating towards your mission in exposing the truth and justice. Whatever is agreed upon by your commenters about this matter, I’ll abide by it.
Rene Cruz says
In 1990, the payment of local transfer tax is governed by PD No. 231 or the Local Tax Code, amended by PD No. 426. If the value of the wife’s property is 510,000 , the transfer tax is only 1,275. This is payable after 1year from the date of sale or in 1991. The surcharge is 25% of this amount and the interest is 14% per annum of unpaid amount computed from due date until the tax is fully paid. The notary public is required to furnish the provincial treasurer the copy of the deed within 30 days after notarization. Is the buyer incapable of paying 1/4 of 1% of the contract price one year after the sale? Did we check from the records the treasurer of Marikina or province of Rizal if the Deed of Sale was submitted by the notary. If the document is not registered, is it binding to the 3rd parties or the public. Will it be accorded the same value as the best evidence to support the argument that there is a sale? Is the best evidence rule (evidence) applicable?
Sources:http://philippinelaw.info/statutes/pd231.html
http://www.chanrobles.com/presidentialdecrees/presidentialdecreeno426.html
concerned_citizen says
malaking kalokohan to’.i’ve seen the video footage of the news exclusive showing Mr. Demterio’s property in Marikina. ang daming bonsai plants at mukhang mayaman. tapos sasabihin walang pera pang transfer ng property? kakutsaba si mang demterio sa pagtatago ng properties ng mga corona.
BikerDad says
I will only believe our judicial system if they put these big fishes to jail. So far all I noticed are posturing and trying to look good on camera and nothing else. They should freeze and confiscate Corona’s assets no questions asked.
Dennis Zarauz says
Ang nakikita nating problema sa pagbabayad ni Mang Vicente ng transfer tax ay iyong kay Mrs. Corona lamang. Paano iyong kalahati ng lote na kasabay na nabili nito sa kapatid ni Mrs. Corona? Hindi ko natatandaan na nabanggit ng testigo kung nabayaran nito o hindi ang transfer tax.
Paano kung sakaling nabayaran nga iyong kay Miriam ngunit hindi ang kay Christina? Hehehe
duquemarino says
@raissa Was it ever established if Mr. Vicente has transferred the title of Miriam’s lot to his name and on which lot did he build the house. He is also a bonsai artist, si Corona ba bonsai artist din? Kasi nabanggit nya na ang ilan sa dumadalaw sa kanya for the bonsai ay associate justice, if I am not mistaken.