feb 6 senate impeachment court record

8/3/2019 Feb 6 Senate impeachment court record

1/38

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2012 1

AT 2:12 P.M., THE PRESIDING OFFICER, SENATE PRESIDENT JUAN PONCE ENRILE,

CALLED THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO C.

CORONA TO ORDER.

The Presiding Officer. The continuation of the Impeachment Trial of the Hon. Supreme CourtChief Justice Renato C. Corona is hereby called to order.

We shall be led in prayer by the distinguished Senator from Cavite, the Hon. Sen. Panfilo M.

Lacson.

Senator Lacson. This will be a very short prayer.

Grant us, oh Lord, that we may call upon Your infinite wisdom to guide us when we render our

judgment of guilt or innocence. We pray that the rules applied and the evidence presented before this

Court be not obscured for the sake of our enlightenment. But most of all, we pray for healing and that

we get this task done as if we never went through the agony of this trial.

All these we ask in the name of Your Son, Jesus.

Amen.

The Presiding Officer. Amen.

The Secretary will please call the roll of Senators.

The Secretary,reading:

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

Senator Joker P. Arroyo ...................................................................... Present

Republic of the Philippines

Senate

Record of the SenateSitting As An Impeachment Court

Monday, February 6, 2012

Pasay City


2/38

2 MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2012

______________

*Arrived after the roll call

**On sick leave

Senator Alan Peter Compaero S. Cayetano .................................... Present

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

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago ....................................................... Absent**

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Manuel Lito M. Lapid .......................................................... Present*

Senator Loren Legarda ......................................................................... Present

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

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

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

Senator Aquilino L. Pimentel III ........................................................... Present

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

Senator Ramon Bong Revilla Jr. ........................................................ PresentSenator Vicente C. Sotto III ................................................................ Present

Senator Antonio Sonny F. Trillanes IV .............................................. Present

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

Senate President ................................................................................... Present

The Presiding Officer. With 21 Senator-Judges present, the Presiding Officer declares the

presence of a quorum.

The Floor Leader.

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

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

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

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

The Presiding Officer. The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I move that we dispense with the reading of the February 2, 2012

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

The Presiding Officer. Is there any objection? [Silence] The motion of the Floor Leader is

approved.

The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. May we call the case, Mr. President.

The Secretary. Case No. 002-2011, in the Matter of Impeachment Trial of Hon. Chief Justice

Renato C. Corona.


3/38


Senator Sotto. Mr. President, may we ask the respective Counsels to make their appearances

enter their appearances.

Representative Tupas. Good afternoon, Your Honor.

For the House of Representatives Prosecution panel, same appearance.

The Presiding Officer. Noted for the Prosecution.

For the Defense?

Mr. Cuevas. For the Defense, the same appearance, Your Honor, for the Defense.

The Presiding Officer. Noted for the Defense.

The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, we may now call on the Prosecution for the continuation of

the presentation of evidence.

The Presiding Officer. The Prosecution may now proceed to present their evidence in chief.

Representative Tupas. As was manifestedI am sorry.

The Presiding Officer. The first witness.

Representative Tupas. Your Honor, as was manifested last week, we are calling back the

Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Kim Henares.

The Presiding Officer. Well, let the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue,

the Hon. Kim Henares, to enter the hall and take the witness stand, and to testify under the same oath.

Representative Tupas. And Your Honor, may we request that one of the private prosecutors,Atty. Arthur Lim, be recognized, for the Prosecution.

The Presiding Officer. Attorney

Representative Tupas. Arthur Lim. Thank you.

The Presiding Officer. Arthur Lim. Atty. Arthur Lim is recognized.

Mr. Lim. Thank you, Your Honor.

Good afternoon.

The Presiding Officer. Proceed.

Mr. Lim. Your Honor please, the witness will be testifying under the same oath, with your kind

permission.


Mr. Lim. Your Honor please, before I proceed to propound a few additional direct-examination

questions, may I manifest for housekeeping purposes and for orderly presentation of evidence by the

Prosecution, the following, with your permission, Your Honor?

Mr. Cuevas. At this juncture, Your Honor


4/38


The Presiding Officer. Just a minute to clarify.

The Honorable Commissioner of Internal Revenue testified on direct examination, correct?

Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. And then there was a cross?


The Presiding Officer. Is this correct?

Mr. Cuevas. That is correct, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Now, you are doing a redirect question?

Mr. Lim. No, not yet, Your Honor please. Because it will be recalled, and the records will bear

this representation out, that the Prosecution, specifically this representation, did not yet terminate the

direct examination. Although we thanked the Honorable Senate, particularly the Honorable Presiding

Officer, for his patience in receiving the testimony. We were also directed, Your Honor, to submit alegal memorandum

The Presiding Officer. No, no. Wait a minute. Do not clutter the issue. The issue is the order

of proof. You made a direct examination. There was a cross-examination already. That means that

you stopped. You ended your direct examination.

Now, you are recalling the witness to the witness stand. Did the Defense finish his cross-

examination?

Mr. Cuevas. No, Your Honor. We were about towe have gone so far, Your Honor, but time

caught up with us.

The Presiding Officer. Would you allow the Prosecution to complete their direct examination

before you proceed with your

Mr. Cuevas. We wanted very much, Your Honor, but we regret we cannot do that because we

will be violating the rule on the orderly presentation of evidence.

The Presiding Officer. So why do you not do this so that there will be an orderly proceeding?

Allow them to cross-examine then you can ask your additional question during redirect.

Mr. Lim. Your Honor please, with your kind indulgence, just a brief manifestation.


Mr. Lim. TheJournal of January 26, 2012 will disclose, or discloses rather, that the direct

examination by this representation was not terminated. As a matter of fact, the Honorable Presiding

Officer even directed the witness as well as the Prosecution to submit a legal memorandum on the issue

of whether or not a CAR, Certificate Authorizing Registration, is required for the transfer of shares of

stock outside of the Philippine Stock Exchange. So

The Presiding Officer. That is correct. That is from the Chair. That is not a part of your

evidence in chief. That is a requirement of the Chair. But as far as you are concerned, you

have finished your direct examination and that would not have authorized the cross-examination

unless you ended your direct examination.


5/38


Mr. Lim. Your Honor please, just one more brief statement.

Justice Cuevas was even hesitant to conduct a cross. He pointed out that this representation has

not yet terminated his direct. It was only in compliance with the directive of the Honorable Presiding

Officer that Justice Cuevas started his cross.

The Presiding Officer. All right.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, please.

Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please.

The Presiding Officer. All right. In order that we will notwith your forbearance, we will not

wrangle in this, let us allow the Prosecution to complete their direct examination.

So ordered.

Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please. This is in the form of additional direct?

Mr. Lim. Continuation of direct.

The Presiding Officer. Yes. In other words, you will start your cross-examination anew.

Mr. Cuevas. Well, we will just place on record, Your Honor, with the kind indulgence of

this Honorable Court, on the matter now being threaded upon by the Honorable Court because we

were made to understand that we can conduct the cross-examination because the direct examination

had already been terminated. There was no mention of any reservation, Your Honor.

Senator Sotto. Senator Pangilinan, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. Senator Pangilinan.

Senator Pangilinan. Yes, Mr. President.

I think the records will bear us out that the Prosecution had not completed its direct examination

and, in fact, the Chair had inquired as to the Defense, as to whether they were willing to proceed

or start their cross-examination despite the fact that the Prosecution had not terminated their

direct examination.

Mr. Cuevas. I have examined the records, Your Honor, and I do not see any reservation

to that effect. What remains hanging is the alleged directive of the Honorable Presiding Judge

requiring certain memorandum in connection with what is alleged by the witness in her

direct examination.

The Presiding Officer. That has nothing to do

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, it has nothing

The Presiding Officer. with the direct examination. That was a request by the Chair because

in his recollection, there is no need for the participation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue with respect

to the transfer of shares not passed through the Stock Exchange when those shares are sold privately

and the final tax is paid. So, anyway, that is a side issue.

Now, with the indulgence of the Defense, I will allow the additional direct so that you can start


6/38


your cross-examination. Anyway, you are just starting the cross-examination when we broke off

with the Honorable Internal Revenue Commissioner as a witness.

Mr. Cuevas. We are almost through, Your Honor. We have examined the records of the

proceedings and we were almost through, probably with two or three more cross-examination

questions.

The Presiding Officer. Anyway, it is the order of the Chair to allow

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. the additional direct. Proceed.

Mr. Lim. Thank you, Your Honor, with your kind indulgence.

Madam Witness, good afternoon. You identified the CAR or Certificate Authorizing Registration

for the La Vista property which was sold by spouses Renato Corona and Mrs. Cristina Corona in 2010

to their daughter Carla Corona Castillo married to Constantino Castillo III for the sum of P18 million.

My question is this, Maam: When you conducted the review of the documents for the

transaction, did you also review the ITRs or Income Tax Returns, if any, that were filed by

Constantino Castillo III?

Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please.

The Presiding Officer. What is the relevance of that question, Mr. Counsel?

Mr. Lim. We are proving, Your Honor please, an unreported asset and the Honorable Court

had already previously allowed the marking and identification of Carla Coronas ITRs, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Correct, correct. But speak a little slow, softer. Correct.

Mr. Lim. I am sorry, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. I know that we have booming voices but let us lower the tone of our


The Presiding Officer. discourse. But the Chair would like to know the relevance of

the ITR because what the allegation to be supported by a proof is non-inclusion of an asset

in the SALN.


The Presiding Officer. And I beg the indulgence of the Prosecution, the Chair would like to

know what is the relevance of the SALNof the ITR with respect to the non-inclusion because if you

introduce the ITR, the tendency is that you will be proving Paragraph 2.4 which is actually not

authorized by the Court to be the subject of reception of evidence.

Mr. Lim. May I answer, Your Honor?

The Presiding Officer. Yes.

Mr. Lim. The sale, Your Honor, was in favor of Carla Corona Castillo and husband Constantino

Castillo III.


7/38


The Presiding Officer. Is the understanding of the Court correct that what you are trying to show

is that the buyer in this case did not have the financial capacity to buy, ergo, this property belongs

to the Respondent?

Mr. Lim. Thank you for stating it very well for us, Your Honor. That is the purpose,

Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. So the ITR that you are discussing here is the ITR of the buyer.

Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Besides, Your Honor, on page 59 of the Journal of January 26,

the Hon. Sen. Ralph G. Recto was asking the Prosecutionwas asking about these ITRs. And there

is a statement here that, the way I understand it, the honorable Senator was inquiring whether these

ITRs precisely should be presented.

The Presiding Officer. The Chair would allow the question to be answered without accepting

that evidence as an evidence that is linked with Paragraph 2.4. So ordered.



Mr. Lim. Can I restate the question, Your Honor?

The Presiding Officer. Go ahead.

Mr. Lim. Madam Witness, when you conducted the review of the documents on that particular

La Vista property transaction from the spouses Corona, meaning, the Respondent and his wife, in favor

of their daughter Carla and husband Constantino Castillo III, did you also review the ITRs, if any, that

were filed by Constantino Castillo III, the husband of Carla?

Mr. Cuevas.This seems to be another question now, Your Honor. Besides, if the

The Presiding Officer. What was the question before that?

Mr. Cuevas. Only the ITR of Chief Justice Corona and his wife, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Yes, that is what I heard.

Mr. Cuevas. This is now another ITR, Your Honor. And if we examine the subpoena addressed

to the Witness, it merely directs, Sir, to produce documents before this Court and not testify on any

of these matters. So this has a tendency, Your Honor, to be violative of the Order issued by this

Honorable Court that in no case will evidence tending to prove illegally acquired wealth under

Paragraph 2.4 will be allowed. And that had never been reconsidered, that had never been revoked,

much less superseded by any Order from this Court, Your Honor.

Mr. Lim. I will just request for a reading of the question as propounded in the first instance. It

refers to the

The Presiding Officer. Prior to the last question.

Mr. Lim. Prior to the last question.


Mr. Lim. It is the same question that I asked, Your Honor.


8/38


The Presiding Officer. The stenographer is requested to go through the record and state the

question previous to the question bearing on the ITR of Mr. Castillo.

Ordered.

The Stenographer (Ms. Buenaventura). The question, Your Honor, was: Madam Witness,

good afternoon. You identified the CAR or the Certificate Authorizing Registration for the La Vistaproperty which was sold by spouses Corona and Mrs. Cristina Corona in 2010 to their daughter Carla,

married to Constantino for the sum of P18 million. My question is this, Maam: When you conducted

the review of documents for the transaction, did you also review the ITRs, if any, that were filed by

Constantino?

The Presiding Officer. By?

Mr. Cuevas. Constantino, Your Honor

The Stenographer (Ms. Buenaventura). Constantino.

Mr. Cuevas. who ishe is not a co-conspirator in these Impeachment proceedings,Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Anyway, let the witness answer.

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir, I reviewed the ITR of Dr. Constantino T. Castillo III.

Mr. Lim. Is he a registered taxpayer, Maam?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir, he is registered as a professional.

Mr. Lim. Did you bring the ITRs or Income Tax Returns of Constantino Castillo III as required

of you in the subpoena?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes.

Mr. Cuevas. Immaterial, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Let the witness answer.

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir, I brought the ITR for Tax Year 2005 to 2010 with me, Sir.

Mr. Lim. Can you kindly produce them, Maam?

Witness handing to Counsel, Your Honor, a document which is inside a folder.

The Presiding Officer. Was that document marked already as an exhibit?


The Presiding Officer. Identify it according to the exhibit if it was recorded already.

Mr. Lim. The Witness, Your Honor, has produced before the Honorable Court Exhibit

QQQQQ, which is the folder containing the ITRs of Constantino Castillo III. May I request that the

originals of the ITRs from the year 2005 to 2010 as, produced by the Witness, be shown to the

Defense with a request for stipulation that the photocopies marked, which included markings also of

various receipts from QQQQQ-1 up to QQQQQ-11, up to QQQQQ-13-U, Your Honor,

which include the documents like Certificate of Creditable Tax Withheld At Source, Balance Sheet,


9/38


Income Statements and the annual ITRs for the years 2005 up to 2010.

May we request for stipulation that the photocopies marked before the Secretariat are faithful

copies of the originals brought by the witness, Your Honor?

The Presiding Officer. The Defense may stipulate if they wish.

Mr. Cuevas. I am sorry Your Honor.

If the purpose, Your Honor, is substitution, we do not merely stipulate. We admit that the

documents being identified by the witness are faithful reproduction of the respective original.

The Presiding Officer. So, that is the end of the matter.

Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Can we ask the witnessI will request permission, Your Honor,

to state for the record the taxable income and the tax

The Presiding Officer. No. The contents of the documents are stated in the documents.

You cannotthe witness cannot add anything unless you want to prove that there is ill-gotten wealth.

Mr. Lim. We will not be proving that, Your Honor. The only purpose

The Presiding Officer. Well, then, Compaero, you know the best evidence rule, I am sure.


The Presiding Officer. What is the purpose of asking the witness about the contents

of the document?

Mr. Lim. It is just to record that

The Presiding Officer. For propaganda?

Mr. Lim. No, Your Honor. It is to record it in theJournal, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Well, those are marked exhibits and they are official records

of the proceedings.

Mr. Lim. We submit, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. So ordered.

Mr. Lim. May we have the stipulations on all the exhibits as marked?

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, we already admitted, not merely stipulate. We admit to be able to beof assistance to you, Mr. Counsel.


In compliance with the directive of the Honorable Presiding Officer, the Bureau of Internal Revenue

has prepared a Reply or a Position Paper or a Letter dated February 3, 2012, which I would like

to elicit formally from the witness.

The Presiding Officer. There is no need. That was requested by the Chair from the witness.

The Members of the Senate will read that Memorandum. There is no need for you to submit it as

evidence.


10/38


Mr. Lim. May we seek guidance, Your Honor. We will no longer mark this but we will just

leave it to the BIR to submit.

The Presiding Officer. There is no need.


The Presiding Officer. The fact is that there is no dispute that the Respondent owns those clubshares. Is there any dispute about that?

Mr. Cuevas. None, Your Honor. It is not even an issue here.

The Presiding Officer. Precisely.

Mr. Lim. Your Honor please, in line with the legal opinion of the Bureau of Internal Revenue

that there are internal revenue regulations which allow the requirement for a CAR for transfer of shares

of stock outside the Philippine Stock Exchange, may I therefore be allowed to mark in evidence

the CAR for said Palms Country Club shares and the Deed of Absolute Sale as an exhibit also,

Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. You can mark them.


We request for stipulation that the CAR for the transfer of the Palms Country Club shares of stock

marked Exhibit PPPPP is a faithful reproduction of the original, Your Honor.

Finally, Your Honor, just a few housekeeping matters if the Honorable Presiding Officer will allow

for the sake of clarity of the records.



May I respectfully request, Your Honor, that the inadvertent mistake committed in recording in the

Journal, a particular manifestation found on January 25, 2012Journal, page 30, line 12 from the top

reading or relative to the remark: But these are evidences against her when she is not a respondent.

As recorded, the remark was ascribed to this representation. It should be to Mr. Cuevas, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Let the manifestation be recorded so that we can do something about

that error in theJournal.

Mr. Cuevas. May we be allowed to examine theJournal, Your Honor?

The Presiding Officer. The Defense is authorized to examine theJournal.

Mr. Cuevas. In order to gain time, Your Honor, may we make our manifestation in connection

with this observation by the end of the testimony of this witness so that we can move on, Your Honor?

The Presiding Officer. Granted.

Mr. Lim. Secondly, Your Honor, we would like to just respectfully clarify that the certification

issued by the BIR Commissioner on the Alpha List income for the years 2007 to 2010 of Mrs. Cristina

Corona from John Hay Development Corporation is Exhibit HHHHH, Your Honor. The certification

by the BIR Commissioner as to the per diems and bonuses received by Mrs. Cristina is also included

in Exhibit HHHHH. That is only one certification, Your Honor.


11/38


The Presiding Officer. And what is the purpose of introducing those evidence?

Mr. Lim. It is just to clarify the correct marking, Your Honor. Because the Alpha List income

was indicated in theJournal as Exhibit HHHHH. The per diems and bonuses is also indicated

in theJournal as Exhibit HHHHH. But these data, Alpha List income and per diems and bonuses,

are found in only one certification so as not to cause any confusion in the minds of the Senators-

Judges when they peruse theJournal, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Thank you.

Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, we wanted to accommodate our esteemed colleague, but

the manifestation apparently deals with substantial matters. And we would prefer that in order that the

record may speak the correct occurrences, let this be the subject of the examination, Your Honor.

Anyway, he was granted by this Honorable Court to conduct additional direct examination.


Mr. Lim. There are just two-bar, Your Honor, manifestations. I had no

The Presiding Officer. No, no, no, let us finish this first. What is your reaction to the position

of the Defense?

Mr. Lim. That we will do it after

Mr. Cuevas. No, I made aAm I allowed to?

The Presiding Officer. My understanding is that you want

Mr. Cuevas. Correction.

The Presiding Officer. to correct theJournal with respect to those two identified exhibits.

Mr. Lim. No, Your Honor. I did not request for any correction.

The Presiding Officer. What did you ask?

Mr. Lim. I was just manifesting, Your Honor please,

The Presiding Officer. That?

Mr. Lim. That the exhibit marking HHHHH relates to only one document which is the

Alpha List income of Mrs. Cristina Corona, and her per diems and allowances.

The Presiding Officer. So okay. They are contained in the same document?

Mr. Lim. Same document. Just a simple manifestation, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. All right, all right.

Mr. Lim. The only correction was with reference to the remark of Justice Cuevas which was

attributed to this representation.


Mr. Cuevas. Our point, Your Honor, is this appears not to be a mere innocent or error which

was committed through inadvertence. This appears to be substantial.


12/38


The Presiding Officer. Why, Counsel?

Mr. Cuevas. Documents, two documents being involved in one document, Your Honor, did not

come from the witness so this must be established.

We understood it, Your Honor. A certain parcel of exhibit had been marked. It is alleged

to contain several matters. If that is borne out by the records, why the necessity for clarification?On the other hand, if it is not, then it is substantial and, therefore, this must be the subject of

direct examination.

The Presiding Officer. Will you kindly clarify then, Counsel, so that there will be no dispute

about this...

Mr. Lim. Yes.

The Presiding Officer. whether the alpha list mentioned contained what data.

Mr. Lim. The Alpha List of Mrs. Corona, Your Honor,


Mr. Lim. is marked Exhibit HHHHH.

The Presiding Officer. And what does that document contain

Mr. Lim. It was testified to by

The Presiding Officer. that Alpha List marked as exhibit?

Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor, as Exhibit HHHHH.


Mr. Lim. And as testified to by the witness on the witness stand

The Presiding Officer. Correct, yes.

Mr. Lim. this includes

The Presiding Officer. What does it contain?

Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. The gross compensation

The Presiding Officer. And per diems.

Mr. Lim. and per diems, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Period.


The Presiding Officer. Tapos.

Mr. Lim. And, Your Honor please,

The Presiding Officer. You know, the problem is when you describe these documents, you do

not describe them with precision. You clutter them with so many other details that are unnecessary.


13/38


So please proceed.

Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. Just two more questions, Your Honor please.

Going back, Madam Witness, to the Palms Country Club shares of stock, you identified or you

testified last hearing about a Deed of Sale of common shares which, however, the Honorable Presiding

Officer did not allow you to identify pending submission of your legal memorandum. Now that you have

submitted your legal memorandum, will you kindly identify for the record this Deed of Sale of common

shares marked Exhibit PPPPP-2, and we are showing the photocopy, Your Honor. We are showing

this certifiedthere is no need for stipulation. We are just requesting the Hon. Kim Jacinto Henares

to identify her certification.

The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute. Who is the seller and who is the buyer?

Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. The seller, Your Honor, is Filinvest Alabang Inc.,andthe buyers

are spouses Renato C. Corona and Cristina R. Corona.

The Presiding Officer. That is contained in that document marked already as exhibit?

Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. PPPPP-2 and the date, Your Honor, is September 11, 2009.

The Presiding Officer. I do not think there is any dispute. Are you disputing the authenticity of

that document, Counsel for the Defense?

Mr. Cuevas. I was about to object, Your Honor, on grounds of immateriality, Your Honor.

Because this is by Filinvest to spouses Corona. There is noI have examinedI hope the Court

pardons me. We have examined the Impeachment Articles, Your Honor, and there is nothing

mentioned about this. If the purpose is only to show that there was such a transaction but not entered

in the SAL, then this is not the evidence that should cover the situation.

The Presiding Officer. Well, my understanding is that they are presenting this as a not included

asset. Is that correct?


Mr. Cuevas. Precisely, Your Honor. But the partythe honorable Commissioner will be

testifying on a document to which she is not a party, according to her. Maybe she has examined it.

But examination alone does not justify giving of testimony on any particular document, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. At any rate, their purpose is to introduce that document to show under

Paragraph 2.3to show that this asset was not included in the SAL.

Let the witness answer.

Mr. Lim. Lastly, Your Honor pleaseI am sorry.

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, the Exhibit PPPPP-2 is the Deed of Sale of common shares that

was attached to the payment of Capital Gains Tax.


Mr. Lim. Lastly, Your Honor please, may I request the witness? Madam Witness, kindly identify

your signature on this one-page certification for the Alpha List income of the respondent for the years

2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 which data were already elicited from you during questioning by

Senator Recto.


14/38


The Presiding Officer. Is the Defense disputing the signature of the Commissioner of Internal

Revenue?

Mr. Cuevas. No, Your Honor. If it is only for purposes of acknowledging the signature, we have

no objection, Your Honor.

Mr. Lim. May we request that that document be markedMr. Cuevas. PPP

Mr. Lim. in evidence as Exhibit CCCCC-7?

That is all. I am now terminating my direct examination without prejudice, Your Honor, to redirect

on the cross conducted

The Presiding Officer. That is in the rule. You do not have to make that reservation.


Mr. Cuevas. I was a little bit surprised. He is practically revolutionizing the rules of procedureand evidence, Your Honor. I thought I know enough evidence in proceeding

The Presiding Officer. Counsel for the Defense, are you ready to cross-examine?

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor.


Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor.

Now, good afternoon, Madam Commissioner.

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Good afternoon, Sir.

Mr. Cuevas. It is nice to have you around again.

Now, I understand that you came here to testify pursuant to a subpoena issued by the Honorable

Impeachment Court, am I right?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir.

Mr. Cuevas. And the scope of what you will do in connection with the subpoena is mentioned

in the subpoena?


Mr. Cuevas. Now, I have examined the subpoena issued to a certain Commissioner Kim S.

Jacinto-Henares and I do not see any statement in there that you are under legal obligation to examine

the returns and the SAL of the persons enumerated therein, am I right?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares.

( Reply was stricken off the record per order of the Presiding Officer.)

Mr. Cuevas. May we requestwe move to strike out the answer of the witness. It is not

responsive, Your Honor.


15/38


Mr. Lim. We ask that it remain, Your Honor, because

Mr. Cuevas. Our only question is, whether the subpoena issued to her require her or imposes

upon her the duty to examine and review the documents which she has

The Presiding Officer. Let

Mr. Cuevas. We are testing the credibility of the witness.

The Presiding Officer. Madam Commissioner, please answer the question. The previous answer

is stricken off the record. Answer the question.

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. The subpoena is to present the document and to testify.

Mr. Cuevas. And to testify, meaning, on the documents themselves?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. I have no idea what I will be asked to testify about. It just said that I

have to appear to testify.

Mr. Cuevas. No. So how did you understand the subpoena addressed to you, to appear, testifyand bring the following documents?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. I am to appear to testify, and I am to appear to bring the document.

Mr. Cuevas. I see.

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. To testify on whatever questions will be asked of me.

Mr. Cuevas. I see.

Now, did you consider the fact that what is involved in here are Statement of Assets and Liabilities

together with Income Tax Returns?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. I am being asked to bring the document. Like I stated before, the

Impeachment Proceedingit is about SALN no, so I presumed that it is mythe Income Tax Return

that I bring will have to be connected to the Statement of Asset and Liabilities and Net Worth.

Mr. Cuevas. This is the first time that you have engaged in a proceeding similar to the one under

consideration now?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. In an impeachment proceeding, Sir?

Mr. Cuevas. Right, Maam.

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir, this is the first time.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Sir.

And when you mentioned you examined the documents, were you under legal obligation pursuant

to the subpoena to examine the documents?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. No, Sir.

Mr. Cuevas. No, Sir. So that was on your own volition?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. It is my duty to examine the documents, Sir. Yes, Sir.


16/38


Mr. Cuevas. And on the basis of the data you found in there you immediately came to the

conclusion that the person claimed to be the buyer does not have enough funds to carry on the

transaction of sale, am I right?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. I did not come to any such conclusion. I only said it warrants further

investigation, Sir.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes. So you never made a conclusion that the alleged buyer did not have the

necessary means to purchase the property?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, which alleged buyer, Sir?

Mr. Cuevas. This one that you testified in your direct examination.

Mr. Lim. There are many buyers, Your Honor.

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, which of the buyers, Sir? There is Mrs. Cristina Corona, there

is Chief Justice Corona, there is Carla Corona, there is Maria Charina Coronawhich ofI testified

on all of them.

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you. I will just go over

Now, I withdraw that question, Your Honor. We are locating the particular statement,

Your Honor.

Now, based on the SALN of Chief Justice Corona, does it admit all the correction allowed

by law pursuant to what is provided for in the SALN Law?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, I am not the person to ask for SALN. I amNational Internal

Revenue Code, Sir.

Mr. Cuevas. I see. So that is not within your competence. That is how I understood you,am I correct?

Mr. Lim. Misleading, Your Honor.

The witness already stated last hearing that when she files tax evasion cases she deals with

SALNs of all government officials, Your Honor.

Mr. Cuevas. That is not my question, Your Honor. I am on cross-examination and

cross-examination

The Presiding Officer. Let the witness answer. There is no assumption of fact not proven.

My goodness!

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. My understanding as a government official is that when I submit the

SALN it has to be complete and true and that I do not have any chance to amend it especially

if a case is filed against me. That is my understanding of how I prepare my SALN.

Mr. Cuevas. Do you have a copy of your SALN today?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. No, Sir, you did not ask for me to bring it, Sir.

Mr. Cuevas. Will you be able to produce it if required by the Court?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. Yes, Sir.


17/38


Mr. Cuevas. Together with your Income Tax Return?


Mr. Cuevas. All right. Thank you for that.

Now, my understanding is that the SALN may be corrected if there are entries in there made not

accurate and so on. This one that

Mr. Lim. Already answered, Your Honor. The witness

Mr. Cuevas. Wait, wait, Im notHindi pa ako tapos

The Presiding Officer. Let the witness answer. She is a very intelligent witness. She is under

cross-examination.

Mr. Cuevas. In this particular case which you said you have examined SALN of Chief Justice

Corona, did you come to the conclusion that this is one which can be corrected pursuant to law?

Or it may not be corrected at all?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. My personal opinion is it cannot be corrected at all.

Mr. Cuevas. Why?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Because firstin the first place, it is sworn to under oath. And then

second place, like I said, I am a government official and I have sworn toand I would think that the

SALN requires me to completely list all my asset because it is a way for the public to determine whether

at the end of the day I have enriched myself because of my position. So if it can be amended at any

time, then it is a useless exercise to even require government official to submit a SALN at all.

Mr. Cuevas. So you came into the conclusion that this may not admit to correction and that is

your opinion only?


Mr. Cuevas. We will move to strike out the answer of the witness, Your Honor.

Mr. Lim. Why do you move to strike out after asking the witness?

Mr. Cuevas. Well, I am asking her for a definite and categoricalI am not

Mr. Lim. You asked the witness, the witness answered.

The Presiding Officer. Your witness answered already. Why should you ask for the striking

out of her answer? It is under cross-examination?

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Your Honor. Because apparently what is being stated by the witness has

no basis. That is her personal opinion, according to her. It is along those lines that I am asking the

striking out of the answer. Only that particular portion, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. What basis do you want to establish before that a question could be

answered to your witness, Counsel?

Mr. Cuevas. Well, the fact that there was

The Presiding Officer. No, no. I am asking the Prosecuting Attorney.


18/38


Mr. Cuevas. I am sorry, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Because he saidyou have to lay the basis for your question.

Mr. Lim. Your Honor, I am objecting to the motion to strike

The Presiding Officer. What? Because you said there is no basis for the question.

Mr. Lim. No, Your Honor. I did not state that, Your Honor, with due respect. I objected

to the motion of the Defense lawyer to strike out the answer already given which was in direct

response to his question.

The Presiding Officer. All right. Let us stop. Proceed, Counsel for the Defense.

Mr. Cuevas. Now, after your examination both of the SALN together with the ITR, was there

any proceedings conducted by your office in connection with the alleged irregularities in both

documents of the Chief Justice?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. We are conducting an investigation on the differences.

Mr. Cuevas. You mean when you say we, not you personally but your office?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. The Bureau of Internal Revenue.

Mr. Cuevas. And the Chief Justice was already summoned in order to appear in that investigation

or you are just still evaluating?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, I think you should ask the Chief Justice about it. He would be

thewhatever investigation we are conducting, it is confidential and it should be only the party whom

we are investigating

Mr. Cuevas. If Your Honor please, the witness here should not be allowed to argue withCounsel. I am asking her for a fact.

The Presiding Officer. Just answer the question if you know

Mr. Lim. The witness is answering, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. the answer, please answer it. If not, just say so.

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, it is a confidential information under Section 71

The Presiding Officer. The question is, are you investigating?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, I already said, I am investigating.

The Presiding Officer. All right. What was the next question?

Mr. Cuevas. So without the Chief Justice being informed? Is that what you wanted to tell the

Honorable Court?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. No, no. That is not what I am trying to say.

Mr. Cuevas. Will you kindly tell the Honorable Court what you meant by conducting

the investigation without the knowledge of the particular person involved, more specifically,

Chief Justice Corona?


19/38


Mr. Lim. Misleading, Your Honor, without the knowledge. The witness said, Please ask the

Chief Justice because this is confidential, according to the witness.


Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, may I ask for a waiver from the Counsel of the Chief Justice that

I can answer because it is confidential information, Sir.The Presiding Officer. No. The tendency of the question, Madam Witness is, are you

conducting an investigation of the Chief Justice? And you said yes.


The Presiding Officer. And are you obligated to inform the Chief Justice that you are conducting

an investigation bearing on his income tax position, and you said: It is confidential. Meaning, you

did not. Is it not? You did not inform him.

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. We have informed him and I think he is in receipt of a notice that we are

investigating him.The Presiding Officer. Did you send a notice to him that he is under investigation?


The Presiding Officer. That is all. You just explain the procedure in investigation of Income

Tax Returns.

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. We issued a Letter of Authority to him.

The Presiding Officer. A Letter of Authority to your agents to investigate him.


The Presiding Officer. No, not to him, you know.

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. No, the letter

The Presiding Officer. Did you supply him with the Letter of Authority that he is under

investigation?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. We issued.

The Presiding Officer. Precisely. Please answer the question so that hindi tayo

nagtatagal dito.

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. We issued a Letter of Authority addressed to the Chief Justice.

The Presiding Officer. Your agent. Your agents.

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. No, no. I wrotethere is a Letter of Authority, notice that we sent

to the Chief Justice telling him that a certain revenue officer is auditing his Income Tax Return.

The Presiding Officer. So you notified him that there is an ongoing internal revenue investigation

bearing on his income tax.

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. We issued that after the hearing.


20/38


The Presiding Officer. What hearing?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, when I was called here for the impeachment hearing, Sir.

The Presiding Officer. After the hearing here?


The Presiding Officer. What hearing was that when you appeared here?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. January 2526 or 25.

The Presiding Officer. So it is only now that you are conducting an income tax investigation

of the Chief Justice?


The Presiding Officer. Not before?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, before we even determine whether we will really go

The Presiding Officer. All right. Just for the information of the Court, what year is involved

in your investigation?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Starting from taxable year 2002from 1992 up to 2010.

The Presiding Officer. Are you conducting a net worth investigation?


The Presiding Officer. Okay. Proceed.

Mr. Cuevas. I am showing to you, Madam Commissioner, three (3) letters which purport to beLetter of Authority which we request, Your Honor, respectively as Exhibit 56, 57, 58 and 59,

Your Honor, for the Defense. Kindly go over the same and tell the Honorable Court whether that is

the letter

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. 1997. (Conferring with the chief of staff)

Mr. Cuevas. Your Honor please, we noticedthe witness is not supposed to discuss this

The Presiding Officer. All right. Counsel for the Prosecution, please do not go to your witness

Mr. Cuevas. No, no. The gentleman with an eyeglass, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. during cross-examination.

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, he is my chief of staff. So he brings the original document.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes.

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Therefore, I should consult him whetherSir, I do not have the original

but I believe that this is the Letter of Authority that we issued for Ma. Carla Castillo Corona from

taxable year January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2010; for Renato Corona from January 1, 1997 to

December 31, 2010; for Cristina Roco Corona from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2010 and from

Constantino Castillo III from January 1, 1998 to December 31, 2010.


21/38


Mr. Cuevas. May we now continue, Your Honor.


Mr. Cuevas. And you are proceeding with that investigation notwithstanding the pendency

of these impeachment proceedings involving the SAL and the Income Tax Return of the Hon. Chief

Justice Corona?Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, Sir. You did not find anything objectionable in that which may smack

of persecution to the eyes of the public?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. No, Sir. I think the

Mr. Cuevas. Nothing wrong with it?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. No, Sir. If the public expect us to do it, so, there is nothing wrong

with that.

Mr. Cuevas. Which public are you speaking of?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. The public expect us to implement the National Internal Revenue Code.

And from the moment there is something wrong, then you should investigate it, Sir.

Mr. Cuevas. No. But you have been speaking of the public. May we be informed whom do

you refer to by the word public?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. The public we serve as revenue collector of the Philippines.

Mr. Cuevas. The publicI did not get that.

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. We serve as revenue collector of the Philippines, Sir. Whoever that

public might be...

Mr. Cuevas. No. But what

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. ...it may include you.

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you, Madam Witness. But what I am questioning is the propriety of

that investigation being conducted now while these impeachment proceedings are going on,

covering the same subject matter.

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir

Mr. Cuevas. You did not find thatsorry. I am sorry.

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, the alternative is to be told that we are sleeping on our job.

Mr. Cuevas. And you are

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. So, I think the better alternative for the Bureau of Internal Revenue is

to do its job.

Mr. Cuevas. All right. So that so much so that if there is a complaint involving any of the

prosecutors here and the rest of the other members thereof, you will investigate the case?


22/38


Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Of course, Sir. Yes, Sir.

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you. Thank you very much then.

That is all with the witness, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Redirect?

Mr. Lim. That is all?

Mr. Cuevas. Yes.

The Presiding Officer. Redirect?

Mr. Lim. With your kind permission, Your Honor. Yes, Your Honor.


Mr. Lim. During your cross-examination on January 26, 2012, as recorded on Page 46 of the

Journal, the following exchange took place:

Question, Mr. Cuevas: Now, examining the SALN of Chief Justice Corona, which you saw while

you were here already to testify, based thereon, kindly tell the Honorable Court whether you noticed

any discrepancy or falsity in said SALN.

Answer by Ms. Jacinto-Henares: I noticed a lot of discrepancy in the SALNthat I saw that the

media gave me because I measure it in relation to the SALN I have to submit.

My question is, showing to you these documents previously marked as Exhibits A up to N-1...

The Presiding Officer. What document is that?

Mr. Lim. ...inclusive.

The Presiding Officer. What document is that?

Mr. Lim. SALNs, Your Honor.

Are these the SALNs of Chief Justice Renato Corona, copies of which were given to you by that

media person while you were in the holding room of the Senate on January 19, 2012?

Mr. Cuevas. No basis, Your Honor.

Mr. Lim. Why no basis?

Mr. Cuevas. We are sorry to object, Your Honor.

Mr. Lim. Why?

Mr. Cuevas. And we will explain if we are allowed.

Mr. Lim. Why no basis?

Mr. Cuevas. Because there are very

Mr. Lim. I quote in the transcripts.

The Presiding Officer. Please proceed.


23/38


Mr. Cuevas. Yes. You are quoting but there is only one SALN that was discussed in

that question. You are now presenting a lot of SALNs. So, no basis.

Mr. Lim. Generic plural. The witness can clarify that, Your Honor, whether it was just one

year SALN or from 2002 up to 2010. That is why I am asking the witness to clarify.

The Presiding Officer. Witness may answer. Come on.


Mr. Cuevas. Witness examining the documents shown to her by the private Prosecutor,

Your Honor.

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. It seems to be the same document, Sir.

Mr. Cuevas. It seems.

The Presiding Officer. The same document to what?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. To the SALN that was given to me by the media person that was marked

supposedly as exhibits.

The Presiding Officer. Given to you by?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. One of the media persons when they tried to interview me.

The Presiding Officer. Why, the Bureau of Internal Revenue does not have any copy of

this SALN?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, the National Internal Revenue will only havethe Bureau of Internal

Revenue will only have a copy of SALN when we request from the custodian of the SALN.

The Presiding Officer. So, you did not have this SALN before it was given to youby the media?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir, no, Sir.

The Presiding Officer. Now, proceed.


The Presiding Officer. Whatthese SALNs are for what year?

Mr. Lim. From 2002 up to 2010 when he was already a member of the High Court,

Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010?

Mr. Lim. Thank you, Your Honor. Yes, Your Honor.


Mr. Cuevas. Of the Chief Justice?

Mr. Lim. Of Chief Justice Renato Corona.

Mr. Cuevas. Thank you. Because he is being blamed for allegedlyhe is being faulted for

allegedly not filing his SALN. It now appears that the 2000


24/38


The Presiding Officer. So, the Chief Justice filed for those years.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes.

Mr. Lim. As per Exhibits A

The Presiding Officer. No, no, no. The Court would like to know.


The Presiding Officer. Those are SALNs of the Chief Justice for those years mentioned.

Mr. Lim. But tainted by

The Presiding Officer. No, for thisJust answer the question.


The Presiding Officer. Okay. So, what is your comment?

Mr. Lim. Tainted by violations as to accuracy, truthfulness and timeliness.

The Presiding Officer. That is your opinion.

Mr. Lim. Well, Your Honor, I was just

The Presiding Officer. You have not shown yet that they are inaccurate.


The Presiding Officer. So I am just asking a factual statement from you.

Mr. Lim. Yes.

The Presiding Officer. Those are SALNs for the Chief Justice for the years mentioned.


The Presiding Officer. Those are facts.


The Presiding Officer. Okay.

Mr. Lim. May I proceed, Your Honor.

I invite your attention once again, Madam Witness, to this SALN which you already identified andpreviously marked as Exhibits A up to N-1, inclusive. What were the discrepancies you noticed

or noted in this SALN?

Mr. Cuevas. Objection, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Wait a minute. I think

Mr. Cuevas. We are going toI am sorry, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Is this witness competent to testify on those discrepancies?

Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor, because ...


25/38


The Presiding Officer. Why? Why?

Mr. Lim. ... the Defense no less

The Presiding Officer. No, no. Why?

Mr. Lim. Because the

The Presiding Officer. Why is she competent?

Mr. Lim. She is filing her own SALN. The Defense qualified her as an expert witness during

their cross-examination, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Counsel, you did not qualify this as an expert witness. There is a

procedure to qualify a person as an expert witness. Please.

Mr. Lim. I am fully aware of that.

The Presiding Officer. Please do so. You are directed to qualify her as an expert witness.


Madam Witness, how long have you been in the government service?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. This

Mr. Cuevas. This is no longer redirect, Your Honor. You redirect, the coverage of redirect

are only matters taken up in the cross. We have never

Mr. Lim. I am complying. That is

Mr. Cuevas. We asked the witness very categorically well whether she is testifying solely

on the basis of the document.

The Presiding Officer. Actually,May I suggest, Mr. Counsel for the Prosecution,

produce evidence aliunde to prove the discrepancies.

Mr. Lim. Your Honor please, just one brief manifestation.

The Presiding Officer. No, no, I am suggesting this to you. That is the procedure.

Mr. Lim. Yes, Your Honor. But may I also be allowed to respectfully point out,

Your Honor, ...


Mr. Lim. ... the conclusive presumption under Section 2, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court which

applies suppletorily and which is the applicable provision in the absence of a similar rule.

The Presiding Officer. What is that

Mr. Lim. In the absence of a similar rule in the Senate Impeachment Rules.

The Presiding Officer. What is the presumption?

Mr. Lim. The conclusive presumption is whenever a party haswhenever a party has, by his

act, by his own declaration, act or omission, intentionally and deliberately, led another to believe a


26/38


particular thing true and to rely upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such

declaration, act or omission be permitted to falsify it. Hindi po kami ang nag-qualify sa witnesspo,

Defense Counsel ang nagtanong sa ating testigo kung anu-ano ang mga discrepancies nakita sa

SALN ni Chief Justice Corona. Seryoso pong pagtatanong yun.

Mr. Cuevas. Yes, yes.

Mr. Lim. Hindi natin masabi na nagbibiro lang

Mr. Cuevas. That is correct. Tama po.

Mr. Lim. si Justice Cuevas. Ngayon po, bakit natin pigilan, and I said this with all due

respect, bakit pipigilan ng Defense ang katotohanan na lilitaw dito. Tinanong nila ang witness.



Ms. Jacinto-Henares. For year 2002, there are nine (9) properties that were not reported in

the SALN.

Then for year 2003, SALN did not show also the nine properties from Marikina. And then the

property in La Vista, instead of P3 million, should have appeared as P11 million. The other property,

TCT No. 35812, which was reported at P821,000.80 should have been reported at acquisition cost

of 2.508.

And therefore, his net worth is understated because the net worth he reported was P7 million when

it should actually be P14 million not including the Marikina property which were not reported.

Now for year 2004, again, the same discrepancy, than the property in Marikina. There is another

property in Diliman, Quezon City, TCT No. 141891, that was not included in the SALN. TheCondominium Certificate Title for The Columns of 3.589 for a total of P27,235,000.00 or his net worth

should actually be twenty-one million sixty-five, whereas it was reported at seven point something.

For year 2005, again, the discrepancies that I mentioned, then there is the Fort Bonifacio Property

that should have been reported on this year.

And then the net worth that he showed is P8.3 million whereas it should be thirty-one point two

two four point 940 (31.224.940). That is for year 2006.

For year 2007, same thing, it should have a net worth of P24.735 million whereas it only show a

net worth of P11 million.

For 2008, his net worththere are discrepancies there. The net worth should be around P25

million, instead it is P12 million.

Then for 2009, the net worth should actually be P52 million because of the property in Bellagio

1 and instead the reported net worth is only 14.5.

And for 2010, that is where the net worth went down. But this is because of the La Vista sale

of P18 million.

So, that is based on our own analysis because we used the net worth method in assessing tax

deficiency against taxpayers.


27/38


Mr. Cuevas. With the indulgence of the Honorable Court

The Presiding Officer. Have you issued a tax deficiency assessment?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. We have just issued a Letter of Authority to audit them based on these

findings so we are investigating him further.

The Presiding Officer. For year 2000

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. For 1997 all the way up

The Presiding Officer. Year by year?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes.

The Presiding Officer. For purposes of deficiency assessment?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir. We are auditing his taxable year 1996.

The Presiding Officer. Now, the discrepancy that you mentioned refers to the non-inclusion

of the real estate mentioned in this proceeding as belonging to the Chief Justice, the Respondent,

or only with respect to the values?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, the amount we are mentioning, there is

The Presiding Officer. Only with respect to the values?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Yes, Sir, not including the one that are not included.

The Presiding Officer. But the res, meaningR-E-S, the res, the thing, was included in the

SALN?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. No. There are some that were not included.

The Presiding Officer. And there were some that were not

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. included in the SALN.

The Presiding Officer. And there were some that were included but the values are different?



Mr. Cuevas. With the kind permission of the Honorable Court.

The Presiding Officer. The gentlemanthe Counsel for the Defense.

Mr. Cuevas. We are compelled to move for the striking out of the testimony of the witness on

all those points, Your Honor. Because if we have to examine the Articles of Impeachment, there is

nothing mentioned in there upon which they can predicate this kind of evidence, Your Honor. He is

not being impeached for filing a, what we call, false declaration. And this is not one of the grounds

for impeachment, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Counsel for the Defense, I am sure that you know you can traverse

that in your evidence in chief.


28/38


Mr. Cuevas. We will but we wanted to raise a point, Your Honor, that this kind of evidence

should not find

The Presiding Officer. Anyway, let it be a part of the testimony of the witness.

Mr. Cuevas. Okay. Submitted, Your Honor.


One or two more questions, Your Honor.

Madam Witness, I noticed that when you were testifying just now, you were perusing or consulting

some papers or records. I just want the Honorable Court to know what are those, Maam?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. It is just a

The Presiding Officer. What is the relevance of those records?

Mr. Lim. To complete, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Huh?

Mr. Lim. To complete the testimony.


Ms. Jacinto-Henares. It is a tabular computation of the net worth. In effect, a scratch paper

in Excel form, of the net worth of Chief Justice Corona.

Mr. Lim. That is all, Your Honor.

Thank you, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Just a minute. You are already computing the net worth based on what

document?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Based on our own document, the CAR, and based on the Statement of

Asset and Liabilities and Net Worth that was introduced here.

The Presiding Officer. You have not completed the investigation.

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. No, Sir.

The Presiding Officer. Why are you now talking of discrepancy in net worth? How do you know

that those things should not be justified?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. That is why, Sir, if

The Presiding Officer. That is why I asked you, have you issued a deficiency assessment? You

said you have not. So you have not yet determined whether there is really any tax liability arising, no?

Ms. Jacinto-Henares. Sir, before we issue a Letter of Authority so that the taxpayer will not say

we are picking things out of the air, we first do a preliminary study of the tax profile of the taxpayer

and determine whether there is a need for further investigation or there is really no need because the

taxpayer is already tax-compliant. And because of the analysis done, we saw that there is a need for

us to issue a Letter of Authority and investigate the Chief Justice.


29/38


The Presiding Officer. Those are only tentative data that gives you a reason to issue an authority

to examine the taxpayer for possible deficiency income tax assessment, is it not?


The Presiding Officer. All right. Proceed, Counsel.

Mr. Lim. That is all.

Thank you very much, Your Honor, for your patience.

Mr. Cuevas. No re-cross, Your Honor.

The Presiding Officer. Are you through with the witness?


Mr. Cuevas. No re-cross, Madam Commissioner.

Thank you for being patient with us.

Senator Sotto. We are ready to discharge the witness, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. The witness is discharged.

Senator Sotto. I move for a suspension of the session for 15 minutes, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. Trial suspended.

The trial was suspended at 3:26 p.m.

The trial was resumed at 5:24 p.m.

The Presiding Officer. Are the parties ready?

Trial resumed.

The Floor Leader.

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, we have pending matters. As a matter of fact, number one on the

list is the request for a subpoena by the Prosecution panel.

The Presiding Officer. That is correct. And the Senate has resolved the issue and has written

a resolution on this particular issue. And I am now directing the Floor Leader to read the resolution

of the Court disposing this issue.

So ordered.

Senator Sotto. Shall I read the entire resolution, Mr. President?

The Presiding Officer. Yes, in toto.

Senator Sotto. Resolution.

This resolves the twin Requests for Issuance of Subpoenae both dated January 31, 2012

filed by the House of Representatives.

On January 31, 2012, the House of Representatives, through its Prosecutors, filed a

Request for Issuance of Subpoena seeking to require the President/Manager and/or other


30/38


authorized officers of Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank) to testify and produce before the

Court the original and certified true copies of the following documents:

a. Customer Identification and Specimen Signature Card of the bank account, under the name

RENATO CORONA which won P1 Million in the PSBank Monthly Millions Raffle Promo

as listed in the Official List of Winners as of March 13, 2008;

b. Monthly Bank Statements from the time of opening to January 2012 of the bank account(s)

under the name RENATO CORONA which won P1 Million in the PSBank Monthly

Millions Raffle Promo as listed in the Official List of Winners as of March 13, 2008;

c. Other bank accounts including time deposits, money market placements, peso/dollar

accounts and the like, that are in the name of RENATO CORONA and/or CRISTINA

CORONA.

On the same date, the Prosecution filed another Request for Issuance of Subpoena

seeking to require the Manager of the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) to testify and to

produce before this Court:

the original and certified true copies of the Account Opening Form, Monthly Bank

StatementS for January 2005 to December 2010, and December 2011 of Bank

Account No. 1443-8030-61 in the name of RENATO CORONA which was

referred to in Exhibits VVV and VVV-1 and such other accounts appearing in

the name of Renato Corona and/or Cristina Corona.

The Defense opposed both Requests through its Opposition to the Request for

Issuance of Subpoena (PS Bank) and Opposition to the Request for Issuance of Subpoena

both dated January 31, 2012, which it both filed on February 1, 2012. The Prosecution filed

a Reply dated 2 February to the two (2) Oppositions to the request of issuance of subpoenae.

On February 3, 2012, the Prosecution filed its Supplemental Request for Subpoena/Reply,

designating therein the particular bank accounts in PS Bank which the Chief Justice

allegedly has. For its part, the Defense filed a Consolidated Opposition and Rejoinder.

The Court resolves to grant the issuance of the subpoena but sets specific limits

to the same:

In determining whether the production of the documents described in a subpoena duces

tecum should be enforced by the Court, it is proper to consider, first, whether the subpoena

calls for the production of specific proof; and secondly, whether the proof isprima facie

sufficiently relevant to justify enforcing its production. A general inquisitorial examination

of all books, papers, and documents of an adversary, conducted with a view to ascertain

whether something of value may show up, will not be enforced.

It is jurisprudentially accepted rule in this jurisdiction that in order to entitle a party to the

issuance of a subpoena duces tecum it must appear, by a clear and unequivocal proof, that

the book or document sought to be produced contains evidence relevant and material to

the issue before the court, and that the precise book, paper or document containing such

evidence has been so designated or described that it may be identified.

After an examination of the documents sought to be produced in both requests, this Court

is of the strong view that the production of documents pertaining to the bank accounts of

Chief Justice Corona should be closely related to the filing of his Statement of Assets,

Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) inasmuch as the funds in said bank accounts may be


31/38


considered as his personal properties which are required to be properly and truthfully declared

in the SALN. The Court takes due notice of the fact that the date of the SALNs of the Chief

Justice are all dated as of the 31st day of December of the years 2002 to 2010. Thus, it is

reasonable to issue the subpoena for the production of bank records as of the 31 st of

December for the years requested.

The Court has had to consider whether or not the issuance of the subpoenae wouldviolate existing laws on secrecy of bank deposits. Under Republic Act No. 1405, as amended,

and the Anti-Money Laundering Act, the disclosure of information relating to bank accounts

in local currency cannot be made except in five (5) instances, namely: a.) upon written

permission of the depositor, b.) in cases of impeachment, c.) upon order of a competent

court in the case of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, or d.) when the money

deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation, and e. in cases of violation of the

Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA). However, it appears that for foreign currency bank

accounts, the disclosure may be made only upon written permission of the depositor pursuant

to Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6426.

However, the Court has taken due notice of the fact that the Supreme Court has, inseveral decisions, relaxed the rule on the absolute confidential nature of bank deposits, even

foreign currency deposit accounts, in the cases ofSalvacion vs. the Central Bank of the

Philippines, G.R. No. 94723, August 21, 1997 and China Banking Corporation v. Court

of Appeals, G.R. No. 140687, December 18, 2006, and Ejercito v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.

No. 157294-95, November 30, 2006. The majority is of the view that the present

impeachment proceedings present a valid exception to the general rule on confidentiality of

information on bank accounts even for foreign currency bank accounts.

The Court would like to emphasize that the non-disclosure of information relating to the

bank accounts of individuals is still the general rule and it has no intention of going against the

public policy on this matter. However, the Court is only issuing the subpoenae relating to thebank accounts of Chief Justice Corona because of the pendency of the present

impeachment proceedings and for no other reason.

WHEREFORE, in view ofthe foregoing, the majority votes to grant the Prosecutions

Request for Subpoenae to the responsible officers of the Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank)

and the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) for them to testify and bring and/or produce

before the Court documents on the alleged bank accounts of Chief Justice Corona only for

the purpose of the instant impeachment proceedings, as follows:

a) The Branch Manager of the Bank of Philippine Islands, Ayala Avenue Branch, 6th Floor,

SGV Building, 6758 Ayala Avenue, Makati City, is commanded to bring before theSenate, at 2:00 p.m. on February 8, 2012, the original and certified true copies of the

account opening forms/documents for Bank Account No. 1445-8030-61 in the name of

Renato C. Corona, and the banks statements showing the balances of the said account as

of December 31, 2005, December 31, 2006, December 31, 2007, December 31, 2008,

December 31, 2009, and December 31, 2010;

b) The Branch manager (and/or authorized representative) of Philippine Savings Bank,

Katipunan Branch, Katipunan Avenue, Loyola Heights, Quezon City, is commanded to

bring before the Senate at 2:00 p.m. on February 8, 2012, the original and certified true

copies of the account opening forms/documents for the following bank accounts allegedly


32/38


in the name of Renato C. Corona, and the documents showing the balances of said

accounts as of December 31, 2007, December 31, 2008, December 31, 2009, and

December 31, 2010:

089-19100037-3

089-13100282-6

089-121017358

089-121019593

089-121020122

089-121021681

089141-00712-9

089141-00746-9

08914100814-5

089-121-01195-7.

SO ORDERED.

06 February 2012.

(SGD) JUAN PONCE ENRILE

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


I would like to announce on record, Your Honor, that we are seeking a reconsideration of the

aforesaid ruling in the light of the jurisprudence, more recent jurisprudence, on the point dealing with

the issues discussed in this case, Your Honor. If the Court so allows, I am prepared to argue ourpoints, Your Honor. But if the Court pleases, we may file a written Motion for Reconsideration, Your

Honor.

As of this moment, I just would like to touch on one important point, Your Honor.


Mr. Cuevas. And that is, the case ofEjercito versus Sandiganbayan, Your Honor, was cited

as an authority for the Resolution of this Honorable Court. There were several propertiesthere were

several documents required by the Sandiganbayan to be produced by Mr. Ejercito while the ground

is that for refusing or Motion to Quashrather a subpoena was that he is not involved in the plunder

case before the Honorable Sandiganbayan.

But the more important thing is this, Your Honor. What is the difference of the settingfactual

setting of that case with the present case? The Erap case, Your Honor, is a plunder case and the main

allegation in that plunder case is that the accused President Erap committed acts constitutive of plunder

resulting in the amassing of ill-gotten wealth, Your Honor. So the issue of ill-gotten wealth was

principally and categorically raised in the proceedings, Your Honor. This case is not a criminal case,

Your Honor. It is an impeachment case, Your Honor.

Now, there are provisions in the Bank Secrecy Law that in cases of 1405, Your Honor,

impeachment is an exception. What does that mean? That, when the case involves impeachment, then

the privacy of bank deposit may no longer be invoked. That is correct, Your Honor. And we agree


33/38


with that hundred percent. But it must be shown that the impeachment case has something to do with

the alleged deposit, Your Honor. If the bank deposit has nothing to do with the impeachment case,

Your Honor, the mere fact that it is involved in the impeachment proceeding does not justify any court

of justice to rule against the rule of privacy, Your Honor. The issue is, is it enough that the case is an

impeachment case in order that the exemption may be claimed, Your Honor? Our answer is no.

Simply because the case is an impeachment case but the subject matter thereof is not in connection with

this impeachment case, Your Honor. It is not.

For instance, certain documents, such as checks, Your Honor, were issued and negotiated in the

casein an impeachment case. But they have nothing to do with the issue involved in the impeachment

case. It is not a case of unlawful exercise of the right to issue bank checks, Your Honor, neither is

it involved in the issueprincipally involved in the impeachment case.

In that case, the exemption holds water, the privacy of the bank deposits may not be inquired into.

I just wanted to emphasize the point that the nature of the proceedings is not conclusive as to debar

a bank depositor from claiming the privilege under the bankif we will be given the opportunity, Your

Honor, we will submit our Motion for Reconsideration. I just went that far in order to show to the

Honorable Court our interest in the ruling made in todays proceedings, Your Honor.

Senator Escudero. Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer. If the view of this Chair, Mr. Defense CounselIt is the right of any

person/party to a case like this to explore all legal remedies.


The Presiding Officer. Now, the gentleman from Sorsogon.

Senator Escudero. Mr. President, I would just like to raise a point of order with due respect to

Counsel for the Defense.As we have previously agreed upon and ruled, a Motion for Reconsideration is not proper on the

part of the parties. Only a Member of the Senate can seek a reconsideration from the ruling of the

Chair. I guess the remedy being alluded to by the Senate President would be that outside of the Senate,

unless a Senator-Judge would stand up and seek a reconsideration from the ruling of the Chair which

is the ruling of the Senate. It is the same ruling we gave in relation to a Motion for Reconsideration also

filed in previous occasions by the Prosecution, Mr. President.

I raised that point of order, Mr. President.

But, Mr. President, having said that, may I have the floor, just for a few concerns and

manifestations?

The Senate was liberal in the sense that it granted the request for a subpoena made by the

Prosecution. However, I would like to raise some concerns. Ang dahilan ho kung bakit binasa yung

Decisionpara hindi ito mag-cause ng issue o panic sa banking sector o business community. But

I place on the record, Mr. President, that the Prosecution, in requesting for the issuance of a subpoena,

attached certain bank records which, under the law, is still prohibited since the subpoena was only

issued today. In their request for a subpoena, they stated it was from an anonymous source. In fact,

they were not vouching for its authenticity as stated in the Petition. I raise this concern, Mr. President,

because whoever released these documents violated the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Law. May I inquire

from the signatories of the Petition for the Issuance of Subpoena, either Congressman Tupas or


34/38


Congressman Abaya, who this source is because they owe fealty and candor to this Court insofar as

any evidence that may have come to their knowledge or possession legally or illegally.

Representative Tupas. Your Honor please, this is regarding the Customer Identification and

Specimen Signature Card and all other documents attached to the pleading, yes it came from

anonymous source, Your Honor. It was given to me last Thursday night from one of the prosecutors.

And when I asked him, it came from anonymous source. And we just truthfully declared that in thepleading, Your Honor.

Senator Escudero. Sir, may we ask the circumstances as to how this was obtained? Sino po

yung Prosecutor na nagbigay sa iyo? At alangan namang multoo iniwan ho ba sa opisina niya

yung dokumento? Mineyl(mail) ba sa kanya?

Because I fear, Mr. President, Your Honor, that we might be violating indirectly the Secrecy of

Bank Deposits Law with the possession of these types of document, that the Impeachment Court issued

the subpoena only in relation to that today.

Representative Tupas. It was given to me Thursday night around 7:30 in the evening in one of

the hotels along Roxas Boulevard. And the Prosecutor is here inside the Session Hall. So, one of the

Prosecutors, Congressman Reynaldo Umali.

Senator Escudero. And was given by who to him?

Representative Tupas. We can ask him, Your Honor, if you wish.

Senator Escudero. May we request

Representative Tupas. May I give the floor now to Congressman Umali, Your Honor?

The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Mindoro is recognized.

Representative Umali. Thank you, Your Honors.

Your Honor please, last Thursday, I left the Senate halls during the hearing. I went to do my job

as a congressman of the 2nd District of Oriental Mindoro. I went to the Department of Public Works

and Highways to follow up my projects in said department. And, on the way out, I could not really

actually recall what particular instance that I wasthat this document was given me. I think I was

handed this envelope and immediately I gave it to my aide and went directly to the Department of Public

Works and Highways. And then on the way back from Department of Public Works and Highways,

I went to the hotel mentioned by Honorableof Prosecutor Tupas in Roxas Boulevard and we had

a meeting there but I had to leave shortly after I handed this document to him, after seeing the document

that I felt it was so important for the Prosecution to know and to discuss on how to go about it. ButI was no longer present in the meeting because I had to attend to a TV show,Duelo, with one of the

spokespersons of the Defense in that particular program. So I could not actually recallI could recall

a small lady but the lady wasI could not remember at all who this person was because it was just

handed to me and I was on the way out already.

Senator Escudero. Mr. President, I thank the good gentleman for his explanation and also

Congressman Tupas.

Mr. President, I raised this issue actually if only to place on record and manifest that in granting

the subpoena, the Senate is not in any wayand that is my understandingtolerating any violations

of the law in order to obtain evidence or details of evidence to be subpoenaed. That in so issuing the


35/38


subpoena, as specified by the Order of the Court, that the Senate does not in any way allow nor does

it give its consent for such practices in violation of the law to be done by either side, either by the

Prosecution or by the Defense. I submit, Mr. President.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Representative Umali. If I may just manifest, Your Honor. If Your Honors please.There was no intent to violate. I guess this was an action taken by concerned citizen who wanted

this thing out and it was handed to this representation, Your Honor. And precisely, I gave it to the

Prosecution Team for them to study on

The Presiding Officer. Where was the envelope given to the Congressman?

Representative Umali. I could not exactly recall.

The Presiding Officer. Was it in the Department of Public Works?

Representative Umali. Not at all, Your Honor. I was here in the Senate and then I left at about,

more or less 2:30 and then I went toI could not exactly recall where because there w