MR. MENDOZA. Mr. Chief Justice, members of the Senate who now sit as judges in
this historic trial on impeachment charges against the President of the Philippines.
Before I proceed to deal with the specific charges, I would like to express
appreciation to the prosecutors for outlining their case with clarity and also with
eloquence.
But what I should also like to emphasize is that what the prosecutors have said and
have represented are not the truth--are not the facts. What they have represented is
what they propose to prove by evidence which they seek to present before this
august assembly.
Noon pong bago manapos si Congressman Tañada, dalawang bagay ang
ipinahayag niya. Ang tinatanong niya, "Ano ba ang sapat na ebidensiya para
magkaroon ng conviction?" And sinabi niya itong kasong ito ay hindi kriminal kaya
hindi kailangan ang proof beyond reasonable doubt. Ako po ay medyo nagulat nang
kaunti sapagkat hindi ko alam na pag-uusapan iyan ngayon. Ang akin lamang pong
pansin diyan ay ito. Nakinig po tayo sa mga prosecutors. Sinabi nila ang malalaking
kasalanan ni Presidente Estrada. Iyan ay halos publiko na iyan, eh. At sinabi nila,
matitibay ang kanilang ebidensiya. Bakit ba hindi pa tayo nag-uumpisa sa
pagprepresenta ng ebidensiya, para bagang sinasabi na nila ang ebidensiya nila ay
kulang. Hindi nila kayang probahan ito beyond reasonable doubt. Kaya sinasabi nila,
ipag-paumanhin ninyo ang ebidensiyang kailangan dito ay kulang sa proof beyond
reasonable doubt.
Kung talagang malawak ang kasalanan ni Presidente Erap, kung talagang malakas
ang ebidensiya, siguro kung ako ang prosecutor sasabihin ko, "We will prove our
case not only beyond reasonable doubt but with absolute certainty." Siguro nga po
kailangan iyan, eh.
Sapagkat ano po ba ang kahulugan ng "impeachment"? President Estrada, or
President Erap to many, was elected by the largest number of votes ever received by
a President of the Philippines, more than 10 million votes.
Iyon pong higit na sampung milyon na iyon, ang sinulat nila sa balota ay "Erap." Pero
ang kahulugan noon, ang sinabi nila, manungkulan ka ng anim na taon. Iyon po ang
mandate ng mahigit na 10 milyong Pilipino. Hindi lamang malaking boto ang
tinanggap niya. Higit na anim na milyon sa pangalawa, si Speaker De Venecia. At
higit na pitong milyon sa pangatlo, si Senador Roco. Ganoon po ang mandate na
ipinahayag ng ating sambayanang Pilipino kay Presidente Estrada.
Ano ba ang kahulugan nitong "impeachment"? The impeachment process has the
objective of removing from office President Erap, of terminating that mandate to be
President for six years, earlier by more than three years.
Sampung milyon, ang sabi, "Presidente Erap, mayroon kaming tiwala sa iyo. Umupo
ka, mag-presidente ng anim na taon." Ito po ngayon, pinaglilitis natin, sasabihin natin
sa kaniya, "Umalis ka na riyan." Gayong mayroon pang mahigit na tatlong taon. That
is what impeachment means.
Kaya po kung gagawin natin iyan, hindi po ba kailangan na iyong ebidensiya ay
maliwanag at matibay? Should not a judgment to terminate that mandate be as
incontestable and as clear as the mandate which elected President Erap as
President? I think that is the intent of the Constitution. I think that is what every
reasonable thinking Filipino would say.
Kaya iyang amount of proof, siguro hindi na muna dapat nating pag-usapan iyan.
Pangalawa, ang napansin ko ngayon hapon, napakarami pong sinabing puprubahan
ng prosecution. Napakarami nilang sinabing kasalanan ni Presidente, na wala naman
sa demanda.
Iyong Articles of Impeachment na nanggaling sa House of Representatives ay
inirereklamo na nga namin kung papaanong nakarating ito doon sa Senado. Wala
namang ebidensiyang inihayag sa House of Representatives. Wala po. In other
words, there was no determination of probable cause.
In lieu of determination of probable cause, kaya po nakarating ito rito sapagkat
pumirma iyong mahigit na 100 miyembro ng House of Representatives.
Ayon sa Saligang-Batas, kung pipirma iyong one-third, puwede na ngang ipadala
iyong Articles of Impeachment sa Senado. Pero mayroon pong mahalagang
kinakailangang lumabas bago ipadala rito. Iyon pong mahigit na 100 na iyon o iyong
one-third na sinasabi ng ating Saligang-Batas, kinakailangang sumpaan nila na iyong
nilalaman ng Articles of Impeachment na ipapadala sa Senado ay totoo. Sapagkat
alam nilang totoo. Hindi po ganoon ang sinumpaan nila. That is not what the
verification says. Ang sabi lang ng verification na iyan, "Ayon sa aming pagbabasa,
ayon sa aming pagkakaintindi, sa nakita namin na nakasulat diyan, iyan ay
mayroong base sa katotohanan."
Kaya po ito ay dumating dito. Tinutulan po namin, kaya lang medyo nabigo kami. In
other words, what I seek to emphasize is that these articles are now before the
Senate without any finding of probable cause. Nonetheless, we will try the case.
After the Senate gave due course to this Articles of Impeachment, it issued summons
to the respondent, to the accused, whatever he may be, but to the President of the
Philippines. And we were asked to respond to these charges, to know these charges.
Medyo hindi nga po madaling basahin at intindihin, eh. Sapagkat hindi po
pangkaraniwan na complaint, eh. Marami pong annexes. Nanggaling sa Inquirer.
Kaya po pinag-aralan naman naming mabuti. Maliliit nga po iyong mga nandoon sa
news items, pero pinagtiyagaan na naming basahin para maintindihan kung ano ang
mga paratang kay Presidente Erap. Wala naman po kaming nakita rito tungkol doon
sa mga mansiyon na sinasabi. Iyon nga po ang pinagkatingnan-tingnan namin, kasi
palagi nang nasa peryodiko iyong mga bahay na sinasabi ngayon. Basahin po natin
ito maski na sampung beses, wala po tayong makikita dito na iyan ay kasama sa
mga paratang at akusasyon kay Presidente Erap. Kung wala po dito, hindi maaaring
bistahan iyan. Kaya po kami nagtataka. Siguro, wika ko, marahil kulang na nga ang
pruweba, kaya sinasabi na hindi na kailangan ang proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Hindi lamang pala kulang ang pruweba, iyon palang sinasabi at iniisip nilang may
pruweba, wala pala rito.
Ipagpaumanhin po ninyo, kung minsan siguro ang aking Tagalog ay hindi
kasinggaling nuong kay Congressman Tañada. Sapagkat si Congressman Tañada
po ay taga-Quezon, lalawigan po ni Presidente Quezon. Ako naman po ay
tagalalawigan ng Pampanga, kaya paminsan-minsan ay kinakailangang tulungan ng
Ingles. Sapagkat hindi ko maaaring tulungan ng kapampangan, hindi makukuha ng
stenographer.
Ngayon po, sa totoo po, anuman iyang mga pinag-uusapan nating charges, at
bottom the question really is: What is the truth about the facts alleged in this Articles
of Impeachment? The truth, ang katotohanan--iyon po ang mahalaga dito, eh.
Sa narinig po natin, ang central figure dito, ang central witness ay si Governor
Singson. Sa totoo po, itong mga ibang paratang dito, iyong nasa Inquirer hindi
naman....Matagal na iyan, eh. Hindi naman iyan masyadong inabala na ng mga
mamamayan, eh. Naabala lang ang mga mamamayan noong magkaroon tayo ng
impeachment dahil doon sa mga reklamo at ipinahayag ni Governor Singson, hindi
po ba?
Kaya po dito, tinatanggap ko. Ganoon na nga ang sinabi ni Congressman Apostol at
ni Congressman Arroyo--na ang mga kasong ito ay talagang nakabatay sa sinabi at
deklarasyon ni Gov. Chavit Singson. Kaya po, pareho na ito--charge 1, charge 2.
Governor Singson po iyon, eh. Totoo ba iyong sinabi ni Governor Singson? Iyan po
ang magiging isyu. Sino naman po ang kailangang magpatunay na totoo? Itong
prosecution, eh. Iyan po ang burden of proof sa kanila.
Maliit pa po ako noon. Ang sabi ng aking nanay: "Anak, magsasabi ka ng totoo.
Sapagkat kung ikaw ay mahuli kong nagsisinungaling, hindi na kita papaniwalaan
kailanman." Kaya po isang beses, ang sabi ko sa nanay ko: "Puwede bang
makahingi ng diyes?" Matagal na po iyon. Mahalaga pa iyong pera noon, eh. "Eh,
bakit?" ang wika. "Eh, ibibili ko po ng sorbetes," ang sabi ko. Mabait naman ang
nanay ko noong oras na iyon, kung minsan ay mahigpit sa pera 'yan, binigyan ako ng
diyes. Hindi po niya nalaman kaagad, pero nayaya ako ng aking mga kaibigan, nagcara y cruz kami. Natalo. Hindi ako nakabili ng sorbetes. Nalaman po ng nanay ko,
ang sabi niya: " 'O, nahuli kita. Sa susunod hindi na kita bibigyan ng pera. Ikaw ay
nagsinungaling."
Kaya po tingnan natin si Governor Singson kung makakahingi pa nga ng diyes. Ang
hinihingi niya dito mas malawak pa roon. Hinihingi niya sa pamamagitan ng kaniyang
pangungusap, 'Tanggalin si Presidente Erap bilang Presidente ng Pilipinas.'
Marami po sa sinasabi ng prosekusyon, hindi naman si Presidente Erap, eh. Gawa
lahat 'yan ni Governor Singson. Kaya po noong nagpapahayag si Congressman
Apostol at si Congressman Arroyo, ang parang pumasok sa akin: Sino ba ang
akusado dito? Si Presidente Erap ba o si Governor Singson? Sapagkat karamihan
po sa sinabi nila ay hindi naman si Presidente Erap ang gumawa. Ang gumawa ay si
Governor Singson.
Dahil hindi po mahaba ang ating panahon, tingnan natin iyong....Ito po kasi ay mas
maraming papel, maraming dokumento. Mahirap po iyong walang dokumento dahil
sasabihin, sinabi niya ang ganito, ang sabi naman noong isa ay hindi naman ganoon.
Iyon pong RA No. 7171, unang-una, ang sabi ay nag-release ng P200 million under
that law sa probinsiya ng Ilocos Sur. Maaari nating sabihin, dahil Budget ang
nagrelease noon, mayroon sigurong kaalaman si Presidente. Ganoon pa man, hindi
naman nila sinasabing si Presidente ang nag-release ng P200 million, ano po?
Ngayon po, pag-release ng P200 million para sa tobacco subsidy, ano ang nangyari
doon sa P200 million? Nag-cash advance po si Governor Singson. Maliwanag po .
Hindi po si Presidente Estrada ang nag-cash advance. Ang nag-cash advance ay si
Governor Singson. Ang sabi niya, "To cash advance the amount of P170 million for
partial payment of the equipment for the flue-curing barn and redrying plant."
Samakatuwid, "cash advance," sinabi ni Governor Singson, para bumili ng flue-curing
barn and redrying plant. Pirmado po ni Governor Singson. Kung hindi niya ibinili ng
flue-curing barn, hindi po ba nagsinungaling na siya? Kumuha siya ng P170 milyon,
sino ang niloko niya? Di niloko niya ang gobyerno. Hindi po ba? "Falsification" sa
pangungusap ng criminal law.
Ngayon, una po iyon, tandaan ninyo. Hindi si Presidente Erap ang gumawa niyan.
Pangalawa, pumirma po siya ng request for allotment of that money, P170 million.
Pirmado rin po ni Governor Singson. Di pangalawang kasalanan na, falsification din.
Kaniyang pirma ito, hindi kay Presidente.
Pangatlo, nagpagawa po siya ng tseke payable--ako nga po ay nagtataka, hindi
naman ito Governor Singson-payable to Luis Chavit Singson, tseke, P170 million.
Sino ang nakapirma? Si Luis Chavit Singson. Kung sabagay, kasama rin po iyong
tesurero. Ito po ay mahalagang bagay. Hindi si Presidente Erap ang pumirma sa
tseke, si Governor Singson, para flue-curing barn. Kung hindi pala, sino ang
nagpalsipika? Sino ang nagsinungaling? Si Governor Singson. Pangatlo na po iyon.
Pagkatapos niyan, alam ninyo, marami pong sinabing mga babae, nagkaganoonganoon; iyong tseke kung saan-saan pumunta. Papaano po ba nangyari iyon?
Sumulat po ng isang authorization si Governor Singson. "This is to authorize Maricar
Paz and Marina Atendido, both employees of this office, to officially transact business
with the Land Bank." Pirmado po ni Governor Singson iyan. Iyan ang pinagmulan ng
maraming palit-palit, pagka-cash cash at saan-saan nanggaling at napunta iyong
tseke. Pirmado naman ni Governor Singson iyan. Kung hindi niya pinirmahan ito,
hindi niya pinabayaang mapunta ang tseke kung kani-kanino, di hindi nangyari iyon.
Pang-apat po iyon.
Panglima. Pumirma po si Governor Singson ng purchase request for flue-curing barn
uli. Kung hindi pala siya bibili noon, bakit siya pumirma ng purchase request?
Panglima nang kasalanan, panglima nang pagsisinungaling.
Pagkatapos noon, eto po ay makikita ninyo. Purchase order pa. Para bagang
mayroon talagang bibilhan, ano po, sapagkat may supplier po. "GOME", nakalagay
dito. Bakit pipirma ng purchase order kung pala iyong pera ay ibibigay kung kanino.
Pero pirmado ni Gobernador Singson. Pang-anim na po iyan.
Pagkatapos noon, purchase order, alam nating hindi na binili pero pagkatapos ay
mayroong lumabas na papel, "Acceptance of delivery." Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin
niyan? Ang ibig sabihin ay tinanggap ng probinsiya iyong binili. Pirmado rin ni
Gobernador Singson. Ngayon pampito na iyon.
Pagkatapos ay may certificate of inspection siya, ininspek iyong binili. Natanggap
pala in good order. Pagkatapos may Memorandum Receipt pa, binili, tinanggap,
Memorandum Receipt to him na sa kanya pumunta, pirmado rin ni Gobernador
Singson. Pampito na po iyon--pangwalo na; nagkakamali--naghihirap na ako sa
pagbibilang, marami na po masyado ang pina-falsificate.
Pero this tops it all. Pagkatapos po niyan mayroong ginawa si Gobernador Singson-ito po iyong dokumento, Settlement of Cash Advance for the amount of P170 million,
pirmado rin ni Gobernador Singson. Ano po ba ang ibig sabihin nito? Ang ibig sabihin
nito nag-cash advance siya ng P170 million mayroon daw siyang biniling ganito at
pagkatapos dahil tinanggap na iyon, tinanggap na niya, di wala na siyang cash
advance, sini-settle na niya ang P170 million. Mayroon pa pong official receipt na
parang binayaran iyong P170 million.
Iyan po ba ang testigo ng prosecution? Sabihin nating totoo lahat itong sinabi ni
Gobernador Singson dito sa mga dokumentong nandito. Di hindi pala kinuha iyong
pera. E, anong binigay kay Presidente Erap? Ibinili ng flue-curing barn, e.
Ngayon, kung sabihin naman natin na pinalsifika niya ang pirma, mahigit na
sampung beses, ibinulsa niya iyong pera, iyon, maliwanag-- siyang kumuha, siyang
tumanggap, sa bulsa niya pumunta. E, sabi, sasabihin ng prosecution "Binigay
naman kay Presidente Erap." Ano ang ebidensiya noon? Ang ebidensiya na iyon-dahil sabi ni Gobernador Singson.
But as far as the irreputable documents and papers show, he was the one who got
P170 million from the province of Ilocos Sur, but as far as whether this went to
President Erap, it was only--it is the word of Gobernador Singson. After he has
falsified 13 documents, does he have any credibility left? Are you to impeach the
President, terminate the mandate of more than 10 million people on the word of
someone who has himself and cannot possibly deny that 13 times he falsified
documents?
Siguro po hindi na dapat pagusapan iyan, e. E, ako, diyes lamang ang hiningi ko sa
Nanay ko, hindi ko lang binili ng sorbetes, hindi na ako makahingi, uli. E, eto pa.
Kaya po, ano po bang leksiyon na nakikita natin dito? Magnakaw ka, lakihan mo
kung gusto mo pa, pagkatapos, para wala ka nang pagkakasala, wala ka nang
pananagutan, sabihin mo ibinigay mo kay Erap. Hindi po ba ganoon ang nangyari?
Hindi lang wala ka nang pagkakasala, e, marami namang sasama sa iyo, e,
maniniwala kaagad sa iyo, e. Lalung-lalo na iyong mga mamamayan na mula sa
mula ayaw nilang manalong presidente si Erap. Hindi po ba ngayon sa nakikita natin
sa rally, lahat naman iyan na tinatanggap nilang katotohanan ang sinasabi ni
Gobernador Singson, e, iyong mula sa mula ayaw nila na mahalal na presidente si
Presidente Erap.
It is a settled axiom in evidence, that the testimony of a person who is himself a party
to the offense has no probative weight, it has no credibility, because he is motivated
by desire to exculpate himself. Sa katotohanan po malaki po ang problema ni
Gobernador Singson, sapagkat mayroon po akong nakita ring papel o dokumento na
lumalabas pala sa government of Ilocos Sur as of December 31, 1999. Governor
Singson and persons working immediately under him have unliquidated cash
advances of P162, 145, 860. 55. The last unliquidated cash advance of Governor
Singson drawn in December 1999 was P100 million. Kaya po sa nangyari, siguro
pinaninindigan na nga ni Governor Singson. Hindi ko alam kung ano ang sasabihin
niya pagka nandidiyan na siya at nakasumpa na siya. Naging bayani na siya.
Speaker na siya sa mga rally. Mga Rotary Club ay imbitado na siya. Siguro ang
kanyang iniisip, libre na ito sapagkat si Erap naman ang babagsak, eh.
Ngayon po, 'yung tobacco subsidy, medyo itabi na natin po. Pupunta naman ako sa
jueteng.
Sabi po ay si Presidente Erap daw ay protector ng jueteng, ano po. Si Presidente
Erap po, siguro may ilan sa mga senador, maski ang mga iba pa, maalaala nila na
bago siya naging bise presidente ay naging senador po siya.
Noong pong 1987, senador po siya at nagtalumpati po siya rito, privilege speech on
November 25, 1987. Tungkol po sa jueteng, eh. Kaya po mayroong kaugnayan ito sa
pinag-uusapan natin. Ako po ay kukuha lamang ng four points he read. Babasahin ko
po I hope I do justice to his language. Sa Tagalog po, eh. Una, sabi niya: "Ginoong
Pangulo, ang kahirapan ay laganap sa ating bansa. Kahit saang sulok ng Pilipinas ay
matatagpuan natin ang maraming naghihikahos." That is his first premise. Maraming
pong kahirapan dito sa ating bansa. Hanggang ngayon naman.
Pangalawa: "Kung P170 milyon buwan-buwan ang kinikita ng Pagcor mula sa mga
casino na kanilang hinahawakan at pinamamahalaan, paano po ang libu-libong ilegal
na mga pasugalan na nakakalat sa buong kapuluan na ang pinakamalaganap dito ay
ang jueteng." Second premise.
Pangatlo po: "Kung ating pagsasamasamahin ang kinikita sa araw-araw ng mga
ilegal na pasugalan sa buong Pilipinas, makatitipon tayo ng napakalaking halaga na
sapat upang makatulong sa pagpapagaan sa kahirapan ng ating maraming malilit na
kababayan." Yan di po ang hangarin niya. Pero ipinagpatuloy po ito. Ano ang sinabi
niya? "Isa pa," sabi niya. "Kung ating magagawang legal ang mga ilegal na
pasugalang ito, mababawasan o masusugpo ang pagsasamantala at pang-aabuso
sa tungkulin ng mga OIC." Noon po ay walang mayor, OIC, po.
"Sa pamahalaang-lokal, bukod pa rito ay matutulungan nating mahango sa kahirapan
ang marami nating kababayan." Finally, ang sabi po niya, "Kaya Ginoong Pangulo,
bilang pagtatapos, nais kong imungkahi na bilisan ang pagsisiyasat na ginagawa
ngayon ng ating Committee on Games and Amusement at isama nila sa kanilang
pag-aaral kung papaano magagawang legal ang mga ilegal na pasugalang ito nang
sa ganoon ay mauuwi sa ating pamahalaan ang malalaking halaga na ngayon ay
pinakikinabangan lamang ng mga corrupt na OIC at ilan pang mga pulis.
Iyan pong pinaninindigan ni Presidente Erap, senador pa siya. Iyon po kasing
jueteng, mayroon po akong kaunting kaalaman--hindi po ako marunong, pero
sapagkat po ako ay taga-lalawigan ng Pampanga--dati-dati po bago nalahar ang
aming bahay doon, tuwing Sabado ako ay nauwi. Pag-uwi ko, unang-una na pong
bisita ay ang kubrador sa jueteng. Ako po ay nataya ng kaunti-kaunti. Pero sa nakita
ko po sa mga mamamayan, sila pa po ang nagagalit, eh, kung hindi pupunta ang
kubrador sapagkat po sa kahirapan ng buhay, lahat po ng ating kababayan ay
humahanap ng pag-asa. Hope springs eternal. Kaya po maski papaano naging
paraan ang jueteng para sila ay maaaring managinip at may pag-asang iyong
panaginip na iyon ay maging totoo. Kaya po napakahirap pigilin iyang jueteng.
Ang aking buong paningin, si Presidente Erap, ganoon na nga po ang nakita niya,
eh. Kanya lang, ang masama sa jueteng, eh, masyadong marami ang kumikita na
hindi naman dapat kumita dahil po illegal, eh. Kung illegal, kailangan maglagay ka
diyan, maglagay ka doon, maglagay ka diyan. Kung hindi, huhulihin.
Kaya po ng sinasabi ni Presidente noon ay gawin na nating legal para iyang lahat ng
kitang iyan hindi pumunta sa bulsa ng kanino man kundi sa bulsa sa kaban ng
gobiyerno. Iyan po ang paniwala ni Presidente na noon at hanggang ngayon iyan pa
rin po ang kanyang pinaninindigan. Kaya nakakagulat po itong sinasabing nilalagyan
siya para proteksiyunan ang jueteng.
Ngayon po, nandidiyan po sa rekord ng House of Representatives. Napakarami na
pong bills. Mayroon na nga po akong listahan na ipinayl to legalize jueteng and some
other forms of gambling. Pero hindi po natutuloy iyan, eh. Not any of those bills has
been enacted. Bakit po? Mayroon pong reklamo sa sektor ng ating kapuluan na
sugal, eh. Hindi dapat gawing legal. Pero ang akin pong suspetsa kanya hindi umiiral
iyan sapagkat nga tinututulan ng mga nagpapa-jueteng. Kakayahin nilang mag-lobby
sapagkat marami naman silang nanunungkulan na tinulungan pagdating ng
eleksiyon. Kanya po siguro alam ni Presidente Erap iyan, eh, na walang pag-asa na
magkaroon ng batas. Kanya po ang ginawa niya, hanapan ng kalaban ang jueteng
na legal. In other words, introduce a game which will compete with jueteng and which
will put it out of business but which is legal and whatever earnings would go to
government.
Sa panahon po ng kanyang panunungkulan, marami pong sinubukan, eh. Mayroon
pong "Quick Pick 2 Bingo." Mayroon pa pong pinag-aralan na small-town lottery
kagaya ng small-town lottery noong panahon ni Presidente Aquino, yata. Hanggang
dumating tayo doon sa "Bingo 2 Ball." Iyan pong "Bingo 2 Ball" parang jueteng na rin,
eh, sa katotohanan. Kanya naman siguro idenisayn ng ganoon para nga mawala ang
jueteng. At sa naririnig po natin, galing na rin kay Gobernador Singson, ay mukhang
magtatagumpay iyan, eh. It will put out of business the jueteng operators. Kaya po
noong narinig ni Governor Singson iyan, siya na rin ang nagsasabi eh, ipinakiusap
niya o ipinakikiusap niya kay Presidente Erap na huwag sanang isama diyan sa
Bingo 2-ball ang Ilocos Sur. At noong hindi pumayag si Presidente, nagalit pa sa
kanya. E, bakit naman niya tututulan ang Bingo 2-ball kung hindi siya nakikinabang
nga sa jueteng?
At kung naman si Presidente nakikinabang nga sa jueteng at siya nga ang binibigyan
ni Gobernador Singson, bakit naman ipapatigil ni Presidente ang jueteng at palitan
ng Bingo 2-ball? Iyan po ang hindi madaling maintindihan, e.
Ngayon, marami naman po silang sinasabi. Personal nagbigay daw si Gobernador
Singson kay Presidente, pero kagaya rin po noong 7171, sabi po ni Governor
Singson, iyon bang sabi niya basta paniniwalaan na lang? Ngayon sabi nila, e
talagang meron niyan sapagkat nadeposito iyan sa account e, sabi ni Governor
Singson sa affidavit niya, sa account pa niya. Pagkatapos, wika niya, inilipat kay
Yolanda Ricaforte. Pagkatapos kinuha doon nagbigay ng P200 million doon sa Erap
trust fund. Samakatuwid merong pera, ano po? Pero iyon bang perang iyon dahil
may pera ang ibig sabihin noon pera ni Presidente Erap iyan? Sabi ni Governor
Singson, e.
Ngayon, ito naman po ang tanong natin: kanina po ang sabi ko, kung si Presidente
Erap ay protektor ng jueteng, bakit naman niya papatayin ang jueteng? Kumikita, e.
Mukhang katakataka iyan. Ngayon, kung naman siya tumatanggap ng pera at para
sa kaniya na nga iyan, e bakit naman niya ipagkakatiwala pa kay Gobernador
Singson? Bakit niya pa ipadedeposito sa pangalan ng account sa pangalan ni
Gobernador Singson? O bakit naman, sa palagay mo na, si Yolanda Ricaforte, bakit
pa ilalagay doon? Kung sa kaniya na nga iyan. At kahuli-hulihan, kung sa kaniya na
nga iyan, e, ari na niya iyang pera e, bakit gagawa pa ng tsekeng P200 milyon
ibibigay sa foundation, hindi po ba? Sa iyo na, eh. Kung sabagay sabi po noong iba,
mabuti 'ika iyan napunta na nga sa foundation kung galing man iyan sa jueteng.
Kung hindi kanino-kanino lang napunta iyan, eh. Iyon po ang hindi natin maaaring
tanggapin nang madalian lang eh.
Samakatuwid, sa ganitong sitwasyon, one must weigh the evidence carefully. One
cannot just take the word especially of someone who has admittedly falsified no less
than 10 documents as the truth.
Sa kabila naman noon na si Presidente Erap eh gusto niya ngang mawala ang illegal
na jueteng, iyan naman, that decision of the President is incontrovertible. Nandiyan
po sa records ng PNP kung ilang raids na ang ginawa. Ang utos ni Presidente i-raid
iyan. Ipasara iyang jueteng. Marami pong magtetestigo diyan. Kaniya nga lang,
kagaya na nga ng nakita ng mahabang panahon, maski gaano pa ka-determinado
ang mga pulis, mukhang hindi nila talagang kayang ipasara lahat ang jueteng. Kung
hindi man iyon organized, sinasabi nila, meron pang guerilla jueteng diyan, eh.
Napakahirap talaga.
Iyan po iyang sa charge 1, charge 2 na sinasabi.
Ngayon po, pupunta po ako sa charge 3. Iyan po iyong Betrayal of Public Trust. Ito
po ay mayroon po kaming kaunting problema, sapagkat sa pagpapahayag po ni
Congressman Gonzales, parang mayroong mga sinasabing papatunayan nila na
wala naman sa demanda. Sapagkat dito po ....
I beg your indulgence. I have to go back to Charge 2. Iyon po ay tungkol sa
Statement of Assets and Liabilities.
Doon po sa Charge 2, marami pong sinabi rin si Congressman Arroyo na mga
interes daw ni Presidente sa mga korporasyon na wala sa kanyang Statement of
Assets and Liabilities. Marami po siyang korporasyon na sinabi: St. Peter's Holdings,
Becks Resources, KB Space, et cetera.
Pero dito po sa demanda, ganito po ang nakasulat. Sabi niya: "He filed his Statement
of Assets and Liabilities for the year 1999, stating therein that he and and his wife
and children have business interests in only three (3) corporations. The President by
that sworn statement also committed perjury and the offense of unexplained wealth
because records show that he and his wife and mistresses and their children have
other interests in other companies outside of the three firms listed in his Statement of
Assets and Liabilities." Pagkatapos po naka-bracket, (Annex "C" hereof).
Ngayon po, iyong Annex "C", sapagkat po kami ang pagkakaintindi namin noong
sinabi nilang "he has other interests in other companies" at pagkatapos naka-bracket
(Annex "C"), ang ibig nilang sabihin, at iyon ang aming naintindihan, nang hindi niya
idineklara sa Statement of Assets and Liabilities iyong mga interes niya sa mga
korporasyong nakalista dito sa Annex "C". Iyon po ang aming pagkakaintindi, at
maliwanag naman iyan, eh. Bakit ba ngayon sinasabi nila si President daw ay
committed perjury sapagkat iyong interes niya sa St. Peter's Holdings, Becks, KB
Space, Verdant, at kung anu-ano pa, mayroon pang ipinahayag doon na tseke, ay
wala daw sa kanyang Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Ang sagot ko naman, wala
sa kanyang Statement of Assets and Liabilities, wala rin sa inyong demanda. Bakit
ba ninyong gustong prubahan iyong wala sa demanda? Dahil ba iyong nasa
demanda hindi ninyo kayang prubahan?
Kaya po, iwanan ko naman po iyong Article II. Babalik na po ako sa pangatlo.
Ito naman pong pangatlo. Marami po ito, eh. Iyong sa PAGCOR, hindi naman sinabi.
Sabi dito, "The President referred only." Wala namang masama sa pagre-refer, eh.
Siguro ang mga senador nasa pulitika eh, sanay na sanay kang mag-refer. Hindi
naman sasabihin ni-refer mo, ibig sabihin aprubahan mo iyan. Hindi po ba? Kaya
iyong nasa sa first paragraph ay maari na po nating itabi iyan.
Ngayon, ito naman po sa Securities and Exchange Commission, tungkol po kay
Chairman Yasay. Nakalagay din po rito by reference iyong affidavit ni Chairman
Yasay, Annex "E", sabi sa complaint. Samakatwid po, sa ang aming pagkakaintindi,
sapagkat itong complaint na ito ay hindi po pangkaraniwan ang pagkakagawa, ang
reklamo nila, si Presidente pinakialaman iyong problema ng BW sa SEC dahil dito sa
sinasabi ni Chairman Yasay sa kaniyang affidavit na Annex "E" ng complaint.
Ngayon po, ano po ba ang sinasabi dito ni Chairman Yasay sa kaniyang affidavit?
"That I further testified"--dito po sa Senado yata ito--"that soon after I ordered said
investigation, President Joseph E. Estrada called me several times, at first
complaining about the investigation and later ordering me to immediately terminate
the same with specific instructions to clear Mr. Dante Tan, the head of Best World
Resources Corporation, of involvement in any anomaly."
Let me underscore, perhaps, the critical clause in this sentence, "ordering me to
immediately terminate the same with specific instructions to clear Mr. Dante Tan."
Marami po silang iba pang sinabing ipu-prove daw nila--si Dante Tan, iyong presyo
ng stock market--pero hindi naman po si Dante Tan and akusado dito, e. Hindi
naman kasali si Dante Tan dito. Ang totoo, mayroon pong preliminary investigation
na ngayon sa Department of Justice tungkol dito, tungkol nga diyan sa mga BW
shares. At iyan nangyari, napadala iyan sa Department of Justice for preliminary
investigation not during the time of Chairman Yasay but during the time of Chairman
Lilia Bautista.
Ngayon, ito pong bagay na ito, iyon ang aming pagkakaintindi. Kaya lamang po
siguro, sa aking palagay, parang iniiwasan na ng prosecution iyan. Ganoon pa man,
iyan ang nasa complaint. Sapagkat si Chairman Yasay, tatlong beses pong ininterview sa iba't ibang radio station at program at sinabi niya, tinanggihan niya ang
katotohanan noong kaniyang affidavit.
Sabi niya doon sa program ni Tina Monson-Palma:
Palma: In that telephone conversation, he did not tell you to clear Dante Tan?
Yasay: Yes, he did not specifically tell me clear Dante Tan or clear BW or he did not
specifically tell me to stop my investigation. No, emphatically, no.
Palma: And that does not mean or interpreted when it becomes a formal legal case
as a formal interference by the President?
Yasay: Well, some people might argue. They say it was interference but what I point
is only that he did not specifically tell me to clear Dante Tan or clear BW.
Hindi ko na po babasahin. Mayroon pa rito. Pare-pareho po iyan.
Samakatwid.... Ewan ko kung kailangan pa naming prubahan sapagkat mukhang
hindi naman nila puprubahan na sinabi ni Presidente kay Chairman Yasay. Pero iyon
po ang nasa demanda sapagkat itinanggi na nga ni Chairman Yasay na sinabi niya
iyan, e.
Ngayon, mayroon pa po rito sa charge 3, na ito sa akin ay maliit
na kahulugan lang ito. Iyon daw kay Jinggoy Estrada. Nakialam daw si Presidente sa
kaunting alitan sa Cardinal Santos. Sa palagay ko naman po, ito ay hindi na
kailangang pagkaabalahan sapagkat itong mga kuwentong ito ay hindi rin natin
nalalaman kung ano talaga ang nangyari roon.
Naririto rin po iyong charge. Sabi nila, si Jude Estrada nag-iwan ng hindi bayad na
bills sa hotel sa Cagayan de Oro. Ewan ko po kung impeachable offense iyon. Pero
ang sabi naman ni Jude Estrada, binayaran naman daw niya iyon. Pero ano kaya
ang pananagutan naman ni Presidente roon? Pero nandidiyan po sa reklamo.
Eto pong appointment naman ni Cecilia de Castro. Ang akin pong natatandaan,
sinabi na po ni Presidente na siya ay nagkamali, hindi niya nalalaman na kamaganak iyon. Sa kinarami nang pinirmahan ay hindi niya napansin. Palagay ko, hindi
naman po impeachable offense iyan.
Ito pong marami pa doon sa Inquirer, hindi ko na po iisa-isahin. Meron naman po ito,
e. Nandito po sa charge na ito pero sinakop po ni Congressman Tañada, iyong kay
First Lady. Ang pagkakaalam ko, inimbistigahan na po dito iyon. At sinabi po, wala
namang pagkakasalang masama si First Lady doon. Kaya hindi ko na rin po iisaisahin iyan. Iyan po iyong Charge 3. Pupunta na po ako sa Charge 4.
Ito pong Charge 4 sa aking palagay ay hindi masyadong mahirap. Sometimes water
is a little more variable than a reading material.
Iyon pong mga kotse. Iyan po ay totoo. Matagal na pong ginagawa iyan. Sa
katotohahan po, ako rin po noong Solicitor General ay mayroon din po akong
Mercedes Benz. Ang sabi po ni Presidente Marcos sa akin, "Madalas ka ika na
nabiyahe sa Pampanga, pagka naman kailangan ng konting kotse iyong matatagtatag"... Pinahiram po ako ng Customs ng Mercedes Benz, S pa. Kaya lang laspaglaspag at pinagawa ko naman. Sa akin pong palagay, wala namang masama roon.
Sapagkat po noong ako ay na-EDSA, ang ibig kong sabihin, natanggal na nga dahil
sa EDSA, iyong aking awto ay napunta naman sa isang Associate Justice ng
Supreme Court. Siya naman ang gumamit. Hindi naman siguro masama iyon
sapagkat minana pa nga ng Justice ng Supreme Court. Siguro natuwa pa at nasa
kondisyon. Pero po iyang kotseng iyan, nagkaroon na po ng kaso iyan. These
precise cars which were supposedly used by Cabinet members under President
Erap's time brought about a case entitled, Ramon A. Gonzales vs. Hon. Ronaldo
Zamora as Executive Secretary, et. al., G.R. No. 139852, before the Supreme Court.
Ito pong si Atty. Ramon A. Gonzales na petitioner dito, siya po ang abogado ng
complainants, nang pumirma ng complaint dito sa impeachment na ito. Ano po ang
nangyari doon sa kaso ni Ramon Gonzales na sinasabi nga niya for a writ of
prohibition, for certiorari, lahat ng relief, hinihingi niya roon.
Ano po ang sabi ng Supreme Court? "The petition is dismissed for being insufficient
in form and in substance." Ni hindi naka-first base. Sa amin pong mga abogado,
kung nadi-dismiss iyong petition mo ng ganyan, e medyo malungkot kang talaga,
sapagkat hindi man lamang pina-comment, na-dismiss na. Papaano naman
magiging impeachable offense, ang sabi ng Supreme Court, iyong petisyon na kiniquestion iyong transaksiyon ay nai-dismiss. Kaya po siguro iyan ay madali na ring
itabi.
Ngayon, iyong pangalawang pong fourth charge, ang sabi po sa complaint, iyong
pong multiple appointments of Cabinet members-- multiple positions. Ayon daw sa
desisyon ng Supreme Court, sa Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive Secretary, 194
SCRA 317, these multiple appointments are unconstitutional. Pero marahil po,
kinulang ng kaunti ang research sapagkat po ang Supreme Court, in a subsequent
resolution in the same case, the decision was rendered on February 22, 1991
upholding the question raised as to those multiple positions. The Supreme Court
issued a resolution on August 1, 1991 in the same case, not really reversing its
earlier decision, but qualifying it in the following manner. It says and I quote:
Another point of clarification raised by the Solicitor General refers to the persons
affected by the constitutional prohibition. The persons cited in the constitutional
prohibition are the members of the Cabinet, their deputies or assistants, whose terms
must be given their common and general acceptation as referring to the heads of the
executive department, their undersecretaries and assistant secretaries.
Samakatwid po, ang interpretasyon ng Supreme Court doon sa probisyon ng
Konstitusyon na sinasabi, the proscription applies only to the Cabinet members who
head executive departments. Sapagkat sa ating gobyerno, mayroong Cabinet rank
na parang member ng Cabinet pero wala naman siyang departamento. Ang sabi po
ng Supreme Court doon sa resolution which was subsequently promulgated is that it
refers to those only who head executive departments. Kaya po, siguro naman, kung
si Presidente ang ginawa niya ay sabi na nga ng Supreme Court hindi masama, lalo
naman sigurong hindi culpable violation ng Constitution.
Ngayon, sa katotohanan po, ito pong.... Palagay natin, gaya po ito... Isa pa po sa
binabanggit nila itong kay Magdangal Elma. Inaasunto pa rin iyan. Nasa Supreme
Court. Public Interest Center, Inc. vs. Magdangal Elma, G.R. No. 138965. Ito ay
pending pa sa Supreme Court. Samakatwid, hindi pa decided iyan. Samakatwid, at
the very least, there is a problem of interpretation of the Constitution. When there is a
problem of interpretation, a wrong interpretation even can hardly be considered a
culpable violation of the Constitution.
Marami pa po ang oras ko, pero siguro wala namang Charge 6. Hanggang Charge 4
lang.
Perhaps, I may conclude with a few general observations. I would like to be candid
and say that when we undertook to take this case, one of the problems which we had
to face was whether, first, to make representations to the Blue Ribbon Committee to
stop its hearings. And, subsequently, whether to seek to inhibit some of the members
of the Senate sapagkat po nalalaman naman nating lahat na ang pinagumpisahan ng
Blue Ribbon investigation ay isang senador ang nagtalumpati entitled, "I Accuse!" Si
Senador Guingona tumitingin po sa akin. Iyong mga charges doon sa "I Accuse!",
iyon din po ang charges na bases of impeachment. Sinabi ni Senator Guingona na
he was accusing the President.
Pagkatapos po, mayroon pong dalawang miyembro ng Senado, mayroon silang
formal resolution na ang sabi, mag-resign na si Presidente. Pagkatapos po, mayroon
namang mga ilan na senador na sumasama sa rally, sumasama sa sigaw na
"Resign." Mayroon naman pong isang senador habang nagdedeklara iyong isang
testigo sa Blue Ribbon Committee at ang sabi "nagsisinungaling ka, hindi ka
maaaring paniwalaan." At iyon yata ay magiging testigo rin dito. Kaya po aming
inisip, kung ang mga senador ay huwes, judges, under settled jurisprudence, they
also have the cold neutrality of a judge, complete objectivity. Kaya baka naman sabi
namin pagdating eh, meron na silang prejudgments. Pero matagal po naming pinagisipan iyan. At ang aming naging desisyon sa nakita ninyo, hindi po kami nag-file ng
anumang motion at hindi naman namin sinasabi ngayon na ang mga senador na iyon
ay mag-inhibit.
The members of the Senate have taken an oath to do impartial justice in this case. I
am actually struck by this oath because it does not only say "justice"; it says
"impartial justice." I had always believed that to be just requires one to be impartial.
But the oath that the members of the Senate have taken--has taken--bind them to do
impartial justice. So as we continue with this proceedings on the part of the defense,
all these notwithstanding, we are confident that the senators will do impartial justice
and as we are equally confident that when the time comes to render judgment, and
as they do impartial justice, a judgment of acquittal will be rendered.
Sabi po ng mga prosecutors ay nalulungkot daw sila sa trabahong ito, mahirap daw.
Kami rin po ay hindi naman nalulungkot, pero we consider this as a challenge
because to us this impeachment case does not only involve defending the honor, the
integrity, and the dignity, of President Estrada. It also involves preserving the
mandate of more than 10 million Filipinos who voted for him. President Estrada is our
client but in a real sense, we seek also to preserve and uphold the mandate of the 10
million Filipinos who voted him as President to hold office until the year 2004.
Sometimes all these rallies around even now they say the "walls of Jericho," sabagay
po hindi yata ako masyadong magaling sa Bibliya, hindi ko po naiintindihan iyan. But
we are also strengthened, and I would like to close by narrating to you a personal
experience.
Isang umaga po, umagang-umaga po, ako ay nasa isang McDonald nag-aalmusal,
hotcake lang naman sapagkat ang sabi po ng aking maybahay ay bawal iyong mga
hamburger, mayroon pong lumapit na isang babae sa akin, very modestly dressed.
Ang sabi niya sa akin, "Kanina ko pa kayo tinitingnan, eh" ang sabi niya, "kinikilala ko
kung kayo si Atty. Estelito Mendoza o kamukha lamang, eh." Eh, ang sabi ko ay,
"Hindi," kako, "kamukha lamang, eh. Iyong totoong Atty. Mendoza mas magandang
lalaki sa kin." Pero sabi ko, "ako nga po, eh, bakit po ba?" sabi ko. "Attorney" sabi
niya, "gusto kong malaman ninyo na ako po ay nagdadasal para sa inyo, sapagkat
alam ko po idedepensa ninyo po si Presidente Erap. Ibinoto ko po siya. Marami pong
hirap ang hinaharap ninyo sapagkat po katakut-takot po iyang mga rally, katakuttakot ang sigaw na "Resign."
So I close to share with you a feeling of confidence that does
not only arise from the justness of the cause of President Estrada but also comes
from the prayers of many Filipinos, who, I am certain, will also be heard.
Thank you very much.
back to top
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That ends the opening statement for the defense. As
agreed upon yesterday and as related earlier regarding the report of the Presiding
Justice on the preliminary conference, we shall now proceed to the presentation of
the first witness for the prosecution.The Majority Leader.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, before we proceed to the calling of the
first witness, may we place it on record that Your Honor, as presiding officer of this
Impeachment Trial, by unanimous consent of the Senate, was given authority in
yesterday's session to issue subpoenas duces tecum and subpoenas ad
testificandum, subject to the small reservation previously noted by the Chair in his
preliminary conference order.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let it be so recorded.The Majority Leader.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, the prosecution will now call their first
witness to the stand. May we ask the Secretary to administer the oath to the first
witness.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The prosecution please, call your first witness.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
REP. APOSTOL. We are ready, but may we ask for ten minutes recess?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Recess is granted for ten minutes. It was 5:32 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 5:50 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE ACTING SERGEANT AT ARMS (Col. Saber). Please all rise. The Honorable
Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Session is now resumed.
REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Prosecutor Apostol.
REP. APOSTOL. May we request that the private prosecutors be allowed to sit down
with us, anyway, some public prosecutors are not taking their seats here.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would you kindly enumerate the names of the private
prosecutors. Have they officially entered their appearance by way of a written notice
of appearance as private prosecutors?
REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice. We have Atty. Marcelo, Atty. Sanidad...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Full names for the record.
REP. APOSTOL. Atty. Simeon Marcelo, Atty. Pablito Sanidad, Atty. Edcel Lagman,
Atty. Prospero Nograles, and Atty. Augusto San Pedro, and the lawyer of Gen.
Lastimoso, Atty. Romeo Igot, only for the appearance of Gen. Lastimoso.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But the latter will not be representing as private
prosecutor?
REP. APOSTOL. Yes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Only as counsel for a witness.
REP. APOSTOL. Only as counsel for a witness.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The request to allow the private prosecutors to sit at the
back of the public prosecutors is granted.
REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice, there is an intimation from the defense counsel
that they would like to go home. Looking at their faces, I think their age demands that
they should be allowed to go home.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What is that?
REP. APOSTOL. It would seem they are intimating now that if we can have a
continuance today, and we will, of course, we are ready, we will just request that the
witnesses who were subpoenaed be called and if they are around, then after that, we
are ready to ask also for continuance.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Why don't we finish first with the first witness before you
can ask for a continuance? The witness
is ready.
REP. APOSTOL. Well....
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And that was the agreement yesterday, that the first
witness would be presented today after the opening statement. You may now present
the witness.
REP. APOSTOL. No, no, I have, I have, Mr. Chief Justice, a great respect for the
defense counsel, but they were the ones intimating to me.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, they did not express....
REP. APOSTOL. Atty. Mendoza is my godfather; Atty. Narvasa is my mentor and....
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, anyway, it is only an intimation but we have to
follow the agreement we had yesterday.
REP. APOSTOL. All right. If the defense counsel is willing to hear our witness, we
are ready.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The defense would have no choice because this is an
agreement that the first witness would be presented today.
REP. APOSTOL. Mr. Chief Justice, may I request if the other two witnesses which
we subpoenaed--may I know if they are here?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Where are they?
REP. APOSTOL. Anton Prieto and Yolanda Ricaforte.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Where is Anton Prieto?
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Prieto, are you here?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The other one is Yolanda Ricaforte--and the return of
the subpoena indicated that the three
were served.
REP. APOSTOL. There is a lawyer allegedly representing
Mr. Prieto, I don't know, if Your Honor will allow him to say something.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. But where is Prieto? Because if he is not inside the
courtroom, we may not allow the lawyer of Prieto to stay in the courtroom. He may be
allowed only at the time that Prieto will be on the witness stand.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Mr. Senate President.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. May I just inform the impeachment court that both Mr.
Prieto and Ms. Yolanda Ricaforte are here. They are at the holding room in the Office
of the Deputy Secretary of the Senate.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So in the meantime that they are there, there lawyers
should also be there.
REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor. In that case then, since they are here, I will no
longer ask any inquiries on them, except that if they will not be able to testify today,
the documents which we requested for Mrs. Yolanda Ricaforte to bring that these
documents be deposited with the Secretary General.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is reasonable. That may be granted.
REP. APOSTOL. Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And so the Secretary will have to get these records
which were the subject of the subpoena duces tecum and to keep these in his
custody.
REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. To be kept very, very securely and safely.
back to top
REP. APOSTOL. So our first witness will be Gen. Roberto Lastimoso. The one who
will conduct the direct examination is Congressman Roan Libarios .
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Please administer the oath on the witness. The
Secretary of the Senate is thus directed.
MR. NARVASA. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, defense counsel.
MR. NARVASA. May I be allowed to enter on record the appearance of another
counsel for the defense panel in the person of Mr. Siegfred Fortun.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Make it of record without prejudice to the filing of the
formal notice of appearance. Yes, administer the oath now, Mr. Secretary.
MR. NARVASA. Just one more minute, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
MR. NARVASA. I am told that the written entry of appearance has been made.
MR. FORTUN. If Your Honor please, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, I have just received it here.
MR. FORTUN. Mr. Chief Justice, may I be recognized, Sir.?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. What is the pleasure of the gentleman?
MR. FORTUN. I should like to know from the Prosecution panel whether they have
witnesses inside the courtroom whom they wish to present in the next hearing. If
there are witnesses intended to be presented by the prosecution...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would prosecutor Apostol answer the query? Do you
have other witnesses?
REP. APOSTOL. We have two witnesses, Your Honor. But according to the Senate
President, they are in the holding room. So they are not here.
REP. FORTUN. So aside from Mrs. Ricaforte, and Mr. Anton Prieto, and Gen.
Lastimoso, you have no other witnesses inside the courtroom?
REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor. Because the other one which we subpoenaed left
for abroad. So, I am sure he is not here.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. When you say yes, who are they?
REP. APOSTOL. We requested subpoena for four. One for Gen. Lastimoso, one for
Anton Prieto, the other one for Yolanda Ricaforte, and the fourth one is a certain
Mayor Jinggoy Estrada. But he left for abroad.
MR. FORTUN. May I kindly also inquire whether you have other witnesses to testify
on the three other charges--Articles II, III,
and IV?
REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, may I just make it very clear that we are presenting
this witness in support of our allegations on Article I. If he will be mentioning and
testifying on other Articles, we will make it known to the Body, Your Honor.
MR. FORTUN. We move for the exclusion of other potential witnesses for the
prosecution whether it will be Articles I, II, III, and IV, your honor. That is what we...
REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, we have no potential witnesses.
MR. FORTUN. Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Either witnesses to be done by subpoena or voluntarily
appearing?
REP. APOSTOL. The only potential witnesses that we have, we have not decided
whether to ask them to testify or not, is Sen. John Osmeña and Sen. Tessie Oreta.
But we have not yet decided whether we will ask them to testify. But they are
potential witnesses.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay then. You may now proceed to administer the
oath.
THE SECRETARY. Please raise your right hand?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Louder please.
THE SECRETARY. Do you swear that the evidence you shall give in this case, now
pending between the Philippines and Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the
Philippines, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?
GEN. LASTIMOSO. Yes, sir, I do.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Prosecutor Apostol, you may now qualify your witness.
REP. LIBARIOS. I am formally entering my appearance, your honor, as the
prosecutor on Article I, Congressman Roan Libarios.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You will be the one to conduct the direct examination?
REP. LIBARIOS. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may may now proceed to qualify the witness.
REP. LIBARIOS. The prosecution, Mr. Chief Justice and members of the Senate, is
offering in evidence the...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Prosecutor Libarios, qualify first the witness before you
make an offer.
REP. LIBARIOS. Can we ask the officer of the Impeachment Court to make the
appropriate qualifications?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Presiding Officer will just do that. Would you please
state your name and other personal circumstances.
MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes, Your Honor. I am retired police Deputy Director General
Roberto T. Lastimoso, 56 years old and presently residing in Roxas City, Capiz. I am
married, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Prosecutor Libarios, you may now proceed.
REP. LIBARIOS. With the kind permission of this Honorable Impeachment Court. Mr.
Chief Justice and members of the Senate, the prosecution is offering in evidence the
testimony of the witness, the former retired police general Roberto Lastimoso to
establish two vital factum probandum or proposition of facts.
1.
That sometime in the latter part of 1998, a few months after he was
designated as the chief or acting chief of the PNP, he was called to Malacañang and
was given instruction by the President to coordinate with Ilocos Sur Gov. Luis
"Chavit" Singson in relation to or with regards to the jueteng operations in Luzon.
2.
We are offering the testimony to establish that the President is involved and is
a beneficiary of illegal gambling operations, particularly jueteng in Luzon.
Mr. Witness....Can I now proceed?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
REP. LIBARIOS. Can you please brief us again about your educational background?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes, sir. I am a graduate of the Philippine Miltary Academy, Class
'67.
REP. LIBARIOS. How about your professional background? Can you please inform
the members of the Body about your educational and professional background?
MR. LASTIMOSO. After I graduated from the PMA, I was commissioned to the
defunct Philippine Constabulary and I was immediately assigned to Mindanao,
starting as a Second Lieutenant in Sulu and in various places of Mindanao. I served
in various capacities from Junior Officer, Company Commander, Staff Officer,
Provincial Director, Battalion Commander, and Regional Director. And recently,
before I retired, I was the OIC of the Philippine National Police from July up to
sometime December of 1998. Later on, designated as Acting Chief of the Philippine
National Police, and in April of 1999, as the permanent Chief of the Philippine
National Police. I went on leave effective May of 1999 until I retired last January of
2000.
REP. LIBARIOS. Mr. Witness, do you know a person by the name of Luis "Chavit"
Singson?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes, I do.
REP. LIBARIOS. What do you know about Luis "Chavit" Singson?
MR. LASTIMOSO. I know that Chavit Singson is the Provincial Governor of Ilocos
Sur. At one time he was a congressman. And I also know that he is quite close to the
President.
REP. LIBARIOS. Why do you say that Chavit Singson is close to the President.
MR. LASTIMOSO. I always see Governor Singson, even when I was still being
considered as the Chief of the Philippine National Police, in the residence of
President at Polk Street in Greenhills and I always see them together near the
President or sitting beside the President and freely getting inside the receiving room
or the sala of that house.
REP. LIBARIOS. When was this, if you can recall?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Well, I was going to the house of the President in Greenhills when
I was still being considered sometime between May to June of 1998.
REP. LIBARIOS. How about a certain person by the name of Jaime Dechavez. Do
you know this person?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Like Governor Singson, I also see Mr. Dechavez in Polk Street. I
cannot exactly recall how many times but he introduced himself to me and we
became quite close because he offered to....he said since I am being considered,
that he can help me. He said he is close to the President.
REP. LIBARIOS. How many times did you see Dechavez in the residence of the
President?
MR. LASTIMOSO. I cannot exactly recall, sir, how many times I have seen him there
because I cannot also recall how many times I have been there but, I think, it is about
two or three times.
REP. LIBARIOS. All right. Aside from meeting Governor Singson in the residence of
the President in Polk Street, Greenhills, did you have any other occasion to meet the
governor?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes. sir.
REP. LIBARIOS. When and where was that?
MR. LASTIMOSO. I recall that when I was summoned one time by the President to
Malacañang, I saw Governor Singson there.
REP. LIBARIOS. You said you were summoned by the President to Malacañang,
how were you summoned? Can you please clarify?
MR. LASTIMOSO. My office received a call from one of the secretaries--I cannot
recall anymore--of the President that I should immediately proceed to Malacañang
and see the President.
REP. LIBARIOS. And did you proceed to Malacañang as instructed or requested?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes, I did.
REP. LIBARIOS. And which part of Malacañang did you proceed?
MR. LASTIMOSO. I was directed to proceed to the Guest House of Malacañang.
REP. LIBARIOS. Upon arriving or reaching the Guest House in Malacañang, what
else transpired, if any?
MR. LASTIMOSO. I remember I was ushered immediately to the room of the
President, the Guest House, and I went inside and greeted the President and saluted
him.
REP. LIBARIOS. When you said you went inside, where, in what particular place in
the Guest House?
MR. LASTIMOSO. There is a room there where the President is holding office. I think
that is an extension of his office in the Palace.
REP. LIBARIOS. When you say that you greeted the President, was he alone or was
there anybody inside the room?
MR. LASTIMOSO. At that time, he was with Governor Singson.
REP. LIBARIOS. And when you saw the President and after greeting the President,
what happened next?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Well, I was introduced to...ang sabi po ni Presidente sa akin e, "O,
kilala mo naman si Governor Singson?" I said: "Yes, sir. I know him already." "O,
tulungan mo siya, ha. Siya ang mamamahala ngayon sa jueteng dito sa Luzon.
Tulungan mo siya at mag-coordinate kayong dalawa."
REP. LIBARIOS. And after that statement made by the President, what did you do
and what else happened?
MR. LASTIMOSO. After this instruction, very brief instruction, we were told to talk to
each other, go out and talk, for me and Governor Singson to talk the matter.
REP. LIBARIOS. And did you get out and talk with Governor Singson?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes. I remember I did. I went out of the room and Governor
Singson was with me.
REP. LIBARIOS. And what transpired after that, after you talked with Governor
Singson?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Well, I told Governor Singson, of course, he confirmed, sabi niya:
"Narinig mo naman iyong sabi ng Presidente. Tulungan mo ako dito." I said: "What
you can do, Governor, since jueteng is really a local activity, hindi dapat iyan
pakialaman ng chief PNP, why don't you coordinate with the local officials, the local
police commanders or even the regional director. And if there is any problem, you
just call me and maybe we can solve the problem."
REP. LIBARIOS. General Lastimoso, aside from that instruction which you received
from the President, did you take up any other matter with the President in
Malacañang at that time?
MR. LASTIMOSO. That particular instance, I cannot remember of any other matters
that were taken up.
REP. LIBARIOS. So, after this matter was taken up inside the room, what was the
next action taken by the President?
MR. FLAMINIANO. Your Honor please, we have to object. The question has no
basis. It assumes that there was something done.
REP. LIBARIOS. Your Honor please, the witness already mentioned that the
President gave him an instruction. So after the instruction, what else happened? I
think it follows, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Witness may answer.
MR. LASTIMOSO. May I be clarified again on the question?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Rephrase the question.
REP. LIBARIOS. After the President gave you that instruction, what else did the
President do, if any?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Are you referring, sir, to the same instruction?
REP. LIBARIOS. Yes, instruction, inside the room.
MR. LASTIMOSO. As I have said, I was told to talk with General Singson outside of
the room, and after we talked, then I cannot remember whether we proceeded.... I
don't think we proceeded back to the room, we just separated ways.
REP. LIBARIOS. General Lastimoso, in connection with your testimony this
afternoon, can you remember if you also testified concerning the same matters that
you testified today in any other tribunal or body?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes, sir. I was also made to testify in the Blue Ribbon Committee
of the Senate in connection with the charges of Senator Guingona.
REP. LIBARIOS. Did you execute an affidavit in connection with your testimony
before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee?
MR. LASTIMOSO. I did.
REP. LIBARIOS. If that affidavit is shown to you, would you be able to recognize that
affidavit?
MR. LASTIMOSO. I can recognize the affidavit.
REP. LIBARIOS. I am showing to you, General Lastimoso, this affidavit.... I am
presenting to you, Mr. Lastimoso, an affidavit consisting of three pages. Kindly go
over the affidavit and inform the Honorable Chief Justice if that is the affidavit which
you mentioned?
MR. LASTIMOSO. The three pages, I can recognize my signature here. But the
second page, because this is only xerox copy, the signature appearing here is not
full. So I do not know whether this is mine. But the last page is my signature also.
REP. LIBARIOS. For the record, Your Honor, that is a certified true copy, certified by
the officer of the Senate. Anyway, there is a signature appearing at the last page of
that affidavit, can you please examine this signature and inform this Honorable
Impeachment Court if you can recognize or identify that signature?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes, sir. This is my signature.
REP. LIBARIOS. Your Honor please, may I request that the affidavit or the original
copy which is now being under the custody of the Senate be marked as Exhibit "A"
for the....
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Which would you want to be marked as Exhibit "A", the
original or that one just identified by the witness?
REP. LIBARIOS. We have a certified true copy, Your Honor. But according to the
witness, page 2 of that certified true copy is not very legible. So to avoid, Your Honor,
any doubt on the legitimacy of page 2, we are requesting that the original copy be
produced, which is now under the possession of the Senate, and be duly marked in
evidence, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senate be ready to produce the original for
purposes of marking? Would the defense be willing to have this conditionally marked
as Exhibit "A" to be replaced later by the originals so we will not waste time?
MR. FLAMINIANO. May we take a look at the affidavit, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, do that please. Because that can be conditionally
marked as Exhibit "A" to be replaced later by the original.
MR. FLAMINIANO. We agree to the conditional marking of the exhibit, Your Honor.
REP. LIBARIOS. With the manifestation of the defense panel, Your Honor, we are
requesting that the affidavit consisting of three pages be marked in evidence for the
prosecution. The first page as....
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Qualify it first.
REP. LIBARIOS. The first page as Exhibit "A"; the second page as "A-1"; the third
page as "A-2"; and the signature of the witness as "A-4".
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let it be so marked conditionally. Exhibit "A", page 1;
Exhibit "A-1", page 2; Exhibit "A-2", page 3.... Is there a page 4?
REP. LIBARIOS. The signature.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The signature on page 4 as Exhibit "A-4".
REP. LIBARIOS. Your Honor please, since the marking is only conditional, may I
request that the Senate shall produce the original copy tomorrow to avoid any delay
in the proceedings.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Follow up the request afterwards. Since this is an
impeachment court, the request should be directed to the Senate sitting as a Senate.
REP. LIBARIOS. Now, Mr. Lastimoso, aside from that affidavit which you already
identified, did you execute any other affidavit?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes, I did.
REP. LIBARIOS. If that affidavit is shown to you, would you be able to recognize that
affidavit?
MR. LASTIMOSO. I will recognize the affidavit if that is my signature.
REP. LIBARIOS. I am presenting to you, Mr. Lastimoso or General Lastimoso, a
supplemental affidavit consisting of two pages. Kindly examine this affidavit and
inform us if this is the same affidavit which we are referring to?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Again, this is a certified true copy, but I can recognize my
signature on the first page and on the second page.
REP. LIBARIOS. In the meantime, Your Honor, we are requesting that the
supplemental affidavit duly identified to by the....
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Certified true copy.
REP. LIBARIOS. Certified true copy. First, may I request if the defense panel would
allow the prosecution to dispense with the production of the original copy so that we
can mark it without any conditions.
MR. FLAMINIANO. We have no objection.
REP. LIBARIOS. So considering that the defense is not making any objection, Your
Honor, then we are proceeding with the marking in exhibit of the said documents.
May we request, Your Honor, that the first page of the supplemental affidavit be
marked as Exhibit "B" for the prosecution; the second page as Exhibit "B-1"; and the
signature as Exhibit "B-3".
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Request granted. Let them be so marked, respectively,
as Exhibit "B", "B-1", "B-2".
REP. LIBARIOS. The signature as "B-3".
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Only "B-2", the signature.
You may now proceed.
REP. LIBARIOS. Now, Director Lastimoso, you said you executed that affidavit dated
October 12 of year 2000. Can you explain to us why did you execute that affidavit?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Well, Your Honor, it was upon the advice of my lawyer.
REP. LIBARIOS. How about the second supplemental affidavit? Why did you
execute that second or that supplemental affidavit?
MR. LASTIMOSO. I also executed that on the advice of my lawyer to clarify some
statements I made during a press conference in Club Filipino.
REP. LIBARIOS. What particular statements did you wish to be clarified in this
supplemental affidavit?
MR. LASTIMOSO. In that press conference last... I am not exactly sure of the date
now. Sometime October, I was late in the press conference. I did not know what
transpired there. But when I was ushered inside the room, I saw Governor Chavit
Singson denouncing the President and there was a charged atmosphere there.
Everybody was emotional. When I was asked how I can corraborate the statement of
Governor Singson, I mentioned that the President told me to go easy on jueteng.
Then upon reflection, since that was a press conference and I was asked to testify in
the Blue Ribbon Committee where I was under oath, I asked the lawyer that I should
correct that statement because that statement did not exactly come from the
President. It was only my interpretation that I should go easy because they told me to
coordinate with Governor Singson. That was the only statement I corrected in that
second affidavit.
REP. LIBARIOS. Can I have the second affidavit?
SEN. ROCO. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Senator-Judge Roco.
SEN. ROCO. Your Honor, just on an inquiry because I am not quite sure-- Inquiry
under 17--what the counsel is trying to do. Is he trying to prove that there is an
affidavit? Or, is he trying to prove the contents of the affidavit? Why not just ask the
witness whatever it is that you want to find out? And then, we will all know what we
are talking about. Otherwise, you are just talking about two pieces of paper and it is
totally....
REP. LIBARIOS. Maybe, the last question, Your Honor. Actually, the affidavit will be
considered as part of the testimony of the witness. We are presenting this affidavit
later on to form part of the testimony of the witness.
SEN. ROCO. Well, we leave to the counsel, Mr. President, but we are totally in the
dark. We have not been furnished copies of the affidavit. We do not know what they
are talking about and he wants it to be part of the narration. And I suggest that, for
clarity purposes...
REP. LIBARIOS. We will be asking the witness actually, Your Honor, to affirm the
contents of the affidavit.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, probably, that is the strategy of the counsel.
REP. LIBARIOS. And then later on, we will be considering this to form part of the
testimony of the witness, Your Honor, just to avoid any insinuations of other
testimonies or affidavits being executed by the witness. Only to clarify, Your Honor,
the series of events that transpired prior to the testimony of the witness in today's
investigation. Anyway, we will only have two last questions, Your Honor, to affirm and
then to explain. That is all, Your Honor.
SEN. ROCO. Mr. Chief Justice, we leave to the counsel whatever he wants to do, but
it certainly is not adding to the clarity for the senators. For me, certainly, it is not
becoming clearer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay. You may now proceed with your last two
questions.
REP. LIBARIOS. General Lastimoso, under paragraph 4 of this affidavit, there is a
handwritten entry which states, which I also presume as coordinating pertaining to
jueteng. Can you remember who made this entry and upon whose instruction?
MR. LASTIMOSO. The lawyer who notarized that, Your Honor, upon my instructions.
REP. LIBARIOS. And can you clarify why did you make this entry in the
supplemental affidavit?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Because that was not included in the paragraph and I feel that it
should be corrected also.
REP. LIBARIOS. Why do you feel it should be corrected?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Because we have to tell the truth, Your Honor, and this is the
truth. I am just trying to correct and tell what exactly what happened.
REP. LIBARIOS. What exactly what happened or the truth when you ...
MR. LASTIMOSO. I corrected. As I have said, I was trying to correct the statement I
made in the press conference because I might be misconstrued. So I corrected, I
clarified that in that affidavit.
REP. LIBARIOS. Do you affirm and confirm, General Lastimoso, on the correctness
and the veracity of the affidavit as well as the supplemental affidavit which you earlier
identified before this honorable Body?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes, sir, I do.
REP. LIBARIOS. That is all for the witness, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Cross-examination. Who will conduct the crossexamination?
MR. FORTUN. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For the record, would you identify yourself?
MR. FORTUN. My name is Siegfried Fortun, Your Honor. I am one of the counsels
for the defense.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So the cross-examination will be conducted by Atty.
Fortun.
MR. FORTUN. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now proceed.
MR. FORTUN. Thank you, Your Honor. Director General Lastimoso, if I may borrow
the affidavit which you have just identified this evening, I would like to show you your
Exhibits A and B, Sir, particularly your Exhibit B, and I ask you, Sir, if you could again
confirm before this Tribunal whether you have read this affidavit and understood the
contents and the implications of the statements made therein.
MR. LASTIMOSO. I do.
MR. FORTUN. You had confirmed also this evening, Sir, that the handwritten
notation appearing in paragraph 4, and for the record, if I may be allowed by the
Chief Justice to read this particular portion of General Lastimoso's affidavit, I quote
paragraph 4. This is of Exhibit B:
"That after retrospection, I would like to make this clarification of my above
statements that the President did not categorically and specifically instructed me to
go easy on jueteng but that was only my presumption when the President told me to
coordinate with Governor Singson." And here comes the handwritten intercalation.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. With the permission of Atty. Fortun, may we know the
pleasure of Senator and Judge Drilon?
SEN. DRILON. Mr. Chief Justice, I am sure my 21 other jurors would share this
concern that we do not know what the witness and the counsel are talking about
because we do not have a copy of the affidavit.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Would you need time for the reproduction of the
affidavit?
SEN. DRILON. We would. At least, for me, and I am sure that my other colleagues
would share the same view. If we can call for a one-minute recess, reproduce these
affidavits and give us copies so that we can follow the testimony.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That was exactly the point of the Honorable SenatorJudge Roco.
MR. FORTUN. I am returning, Your Honor, copies of the exhibits so that it can be
reproduced.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The observation of the Honorable Senator-Judge Drilon
is well-taken. We suspend the trial for five minutes for the production of Exhibits A
and the submarking, and Exhibit B with the submarkings.
The session is suspended for five minutes. It was 6:28 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 6:42 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The session is resumed. Before Atty. Fortun proceeds
with the cross-examination, the Chair would like to request, for and in behalf of the
Impeachment Court, that henceforth, whenever a party here, whether the prosecution
or the defense, would be presenting documentary evidence to be identified by a
witness, sufficient number of copies thereof be given immediately the honorable
Senator-Judges, as well as the Chair.
You may now proceed, Atty. Fortun.
MR. FORTUN. Thank you, Your Honor. General Lastimoso, I again show you Exhibit
B and I present the copy to you. I would like to read paragraph 4. It says: "That after
retrospection, I would like to make this clarification of my above statements that the
President did not categorically and specifically instructed me to go easy on jueteng,
but that was only my presumption when the President told me to coordinate with
Governor Singson." And here, Your Honors, is the handwritten intercalation, and I
quote: "which I also presumed as coordinating, pertaining to jueteng." When you
made this particular paragraph, Sir, and upon the assistance given you by your
counsel and at the time that you put in the handwritten statement which appears in
paragraph 4, you, Sir, understood exactly the import of this particular paragraph,
didn't you?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For the record, counsel is referring to Exhibit B.
MR. FORTUN. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now answer.
MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes, I do.
MR. FORTUN. Accordingly, the instruction of the President to you, in respect to
coordinating with Governor Singson and the matter of coordination in respect to
jueteng, was not exactly a matter directly given you by the President but you simply
presumed that what he said was for you to coordinate on the matter of jueteng. Is
that what you are saying, Sir?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes, Sir.
MR. FORTUN. Will you tell us, General Lastimoso, when it was that you first met with
the President on this matter of coordinating with Governor Singson at the
Malacañang Guest House?
MR. LASTIMOSO. May I be clarified again?
MR. FORTUN. When was it that you met with the President at the Malacañang Guest
House where Governor Singson was also present?
MR. LASTIMOSO. I cannot remember the exact date. And even the time I cannot
remember. But it is some time a few months after I took over.
MR. FORTUN. And you took over, Sir, as Acting Chief-PNP in April of 1998. Is that
right, Sir?.
MR. LASTIMOSO. No. July of 1998 as OIC.
MR. FORTUN. And if you are saying that the meeting took place after about the time
or immediately after you assumed your post as Acting Chief-PNP, it could have been
in July also or August of 1998?
MR. LASTIMOSO. I am not sure now. It could be later than that.
MR. FORTUN. It could be later than that. But will you tell us, Sir, whether you recall
the President having given you direct instruction to coordinate with Governor Singson
on the matter of jueteng? A direct instruction from the President for you to coordinate
with Governor Singson on jueteng?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes. The word he said, was: "Tulungan mo at mag-coordinate
kayong dalawa."
MR. FORTUN. But there was nothing in respect of coordinating because of jueteng
or for jueteng?
MR. LASTIMOSO. I presumed it was for jueteng.
MR. FORTUN. You presumed. There was nothing therefore explicit from the
President asking you to coordinate with Governor Singson on the matter of jueteng.
Is that what you are saying, Sir?
MR. LASTIMOSO. The word, he said, was: "Tulungan at mag-coordinate kayong
dalawa."
MR. FORTUN. I see. And that was all that he had said?
MR. LASTIMOSO. Yes.
MR. FORTUN. And you presumed therefore that it was a matter relating to jueteng?
MR. LASTIMOSO. It was....We were talking about jueteng.
MR. FORTUN. I see. We request Your Honor that the Exhibit B of the Prosecution be
marked as our Exhibit 1 and paragraph 4 including the handwritten intercalation
admittedly made by counsel for General Lastimoso be marked as our Exhibit 1-A.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So you are adopting Exhibit B as your Exhibit 1?
MR. FORTUN. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. And paragraph 4 thereof with the additional statements
in handwriting--the handwritten additional statements as Exhibit 1-A. The request is
granted. Let Exhibit B be marked as Exhibit 1 for the defense and Paragraph 4
thereof as Exhibit 1-A.
MR. FORTUN. Let me get this clear for the record, General Lastimoso. Your
recollection of meeting with the President at the Malacanang Guest House was after
you assumed your post as Acting Chief-PNP which could have been either in July or
August of 1998?
REP. LIBARIOS. Objection, Your Honor. I think the question is now becoming
repetitive. It was already answered by the witness clearly, Your Honor.
MR. FORTUN. May we know the answer of the witness?
REP. LIBARIOS. He said that it could be later than that.
ATTY. FORTUN. It could be later than that. Okay.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you withdrawing the question?
MR. FORTUN. No, Your Honor. I will follow from where I left off.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is overruled. The witness may answer for
clarification.
MR. LASTIMOSO. It could be later than the months mentioned.
MR. FORTUN. I see. Do you recall, Sir, having issued an order to all Regional
Directors of the PNP in respect of illegal gambling, including jueteng after about July
of 1998?
MR. LASTIMOSO. I cannot recall but I must have issued an order.
MR. FORTUN. I show you, sir, a memorandum dated July 31, 1998, signed by a
certain Roberto T. Lastimoso, police director, on the subject of continuing conduct of
illegal gambling all over the country addressed to all regional directors, provincial
regional officers for Regions I to XIII, CAR, ARMM, and NCRPO a copy of which we
are currently distributing to the honorable jurors; judges, I am sorry.
I show a copy to you, sir. It begins with paragraph 1 and it reads: "References". Item
B says: "Verbal Instruction of His Excellency, President Joseph E. Estrada, on July
20, 1998."
Paragraph 2. It reads: "This pertains to the directive of President Joseph E. Estrada
in pursing relentlessly the fight against jueteng and all forms of illegal gambling
throughout the country.
"Paragraph 3. "ICOW, the above-Ref: You are reminded to enforce strictly the
instruction of President Joseph E. Estrada in addressing these illegal activities."
Paragraph 4. "Explore all possible means to identify and effect the arrest of those
behind the illegal activities and pursue their cases in courts. Likewise, implement
drastic measures, actions, including the relief of COPs, PDs found negligent in the
performance of their mandated duties to stop illegal gambling in their area of
responsibility."
Paragraph 5. "Your performance in this campaign will be closely watched and
evaluated, hence, you must come up with tangible results".
Paragraph 6. "This memo serves as an ultimatum for you and your subordinate
commanders to stop/eradicate illegal gambling, especially jueteng, in your respective
AOR immediately."
Paragraph 7. "Be guided accordingly."
Will you say, sir, that this directive came from you and that the signature appearing
thereon is yours?
MR. LASTIMOSO. I can recognize my signature and I could have issued this
directive.
MR. FORTUN. You could have.
MR. LASTIMOSO. I could have issued this.
MR. FORTUN. I see, sir. We request, Your Honor, that this memorandum which the
witness identified as probably emanating from him be provisionally marked as our
Exhibit 2. And the clear reference to a verbal instruction of His Excellency, President
Joseph E. Estrada, to relentlessly fight jueteng and all forms of illegal gambling
throughout the country be bracketed and marked as our Exhibit 2-A.
MR. LIBARIOS. If Your Honor's please...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let it be so marked as Exhibit 2. What is the particular
portion which you are requesting to be marked as Exhibit 2-A, what paragraph?
MR. FORTUN. It is the portion, Your Honor, in paragraphs 1 and 2, particularly the
heading references which thereafter continues to paragraph 2 in respect of the
directive of the President to eradicate jueteng.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let it also be marked as such.
MR. LIBARIOS. If Your Honor's please, may I request the counsel for the defense to
furnish us the original copy so that we can go over the original copy.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is only for conditional marking. Did the
Chair get it correctly?
MR. FORTUN. That is correct, Mr. Chief Justice.
MR. LIBARIOS. But in order for us, Your Honor, to make an intelligent evaluation of
the contents, we should be furnished the
original copy.
MR. FORTUN. We will do that, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. With that assurance, perhaps the attorney...
MR. FORTUN. We also request that paragraph 6 which gives an ultimatum for all
commanders and subordinate commanders to eradicate illegal gambling, especially
jueteng, be bracketed and marked as our Exhibit 2-B.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let it be so marked as Exhibit
2-B.
MR. FORTUN. And the signature of the witness appearing on the lower right hand
corner of the document be further bracketed and sub-marked as Exhibit 2-C.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let it be so marked.
REP. LIBARIOS. If Your Honor please, can we ask the counsel for the defense as to
why he cannot produce the original copy of this document?
MR. FORTUN. What we can do, Your Honor, is to produce a certified copy perhaps
of this document. But in light of the admission made by General Lastimoso this
evening that he identified....
REP. LIBARIOS. Your Honor please, there was no admission. It's misleading, Your
Honor. The witness only mentioned that it could have....
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Probably.
REP. LIBARIOS. Probably, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Probably for the production of the original of the
memorandum, it can be done during the redirect.
REP. LIBARIOS. That is why it would be to the best interest of the witness that he
should be presented with the original copy because he is only presented with a xerox
copy, and we know the technology now, Your Honor. Just to inform the witness.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Prosecutor Libarios, the defense counsel was only
seeking the marking.
REP. LIBARIOS. That is correct, Your Honor, provisional marking but the witness
was presented with a copy. I am raising an issue, Your Honor. What if this copy
happens to be--because it's only a xerox copy, a machine copy, the signature of the
witness and the witness was presented with a copy that is not certified, and asked if
he is familiar with the signature. And the witness mentioned, "I think that is my
signature." This could be a misleading presentation of evidence, Your Honor,
although we are not yet in the offer of evidence. But the way it is presented to the
witness, where the evidence, the original is not available, it could create an
impression on the part of witness, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let us wait for the next question when it comes to the
substance of the memorandum. In the meantime, I think he is only asking for the
marking.
REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor please. We are objecting to any question on that
alleged exhibit because that is just a xerox copy.
MR. FORTUN. I have no further questions on this exhibit, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, the cross-examination is terminated. Would you
request for a deferment of the redirect until the production of the original document?
REP. LIBARIOS. Yes, Your Honor. And in the meantime, we would like to request
the Secretariat to also furnish us the same equipment they furnished to the defense.
They are given movable microphone.
MR. FORTUN. Your Honor, this is not supplied by the Senate.
REP. LIBARIOS. This is unfair, Your Honor, we are forced to stand here for hours
while they can relax.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice, may I just inform Congressman
Libarios that that is not property of the Senate.
MR. FORTUN. This is our own microphone.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. The defense provided that for themselves. So provide
yourselves with the same microphone.
MR. FORTUN. Your Honor, we would like to put on record that we are returning
Exhibits A and B to the gentleman from the prosecution.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Let it be recorded, and can we have the
acknowledgment by counsel.
REP. LIBARIOS. I acknowledge the receipt, Your Honor. And considering, Your
Honor, that the counsel for the defense has terminated the cross-examination, and
considering our earlier manifestation that we want a copy, the original copy of this
alleged memorandum, then we are moving for the deferment of the redirect subject
to the submission of the original copy of the said memorandum.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So in effect, you are moving for a continuance until
tomorrow. It's already 6:58 anyway in the evening. Yes, Atty. Mendoza.
MR. MENDOZA. Just to facilitate proceedings such as the problem we now have
encountered, I think it should be really appreciated that the original would be difficult
to produce except by subpoena, Your Honor, because it is a PNP document. What
we would endeavor to do is get a certified copy. But if we get into a situation such as
this and each time we ask for the originals even if on its face it is fairly authentic and
then ask for deferment until cross-examination or redirect, this would delay the
proceedings. Well, earlier, there was an affidavit also, Your Honor. It was only a
xerox copy; the original also was not produced and we continued the proceedings
notwithstanding that.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It was a certified true copy. Probably you could also
secure a certified true copy of what is conditionally marked as Exhibit 2.
MR. MENDOZA. But we will not be able to secure that by tomorrow. So we will
redirect the...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, anyway, we can defer further the redirect
examination and tomorrow anyway, we will have two witnesses who had been
subpoenaed even to appear today..
REP. LIBARIOS. Your Honor please, the document we feel is
vital and with all due respect, Your Honor, we will not be satisfied, at least on this
document, Your Honor, with a mere certified true copy. The defense is representing...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, under the rules, a certified true copy of a public
document would be enough.
REP. LIBARIOS. It is regularly done, Your Honor, but this is not a document that is
regularly done, Your Honor. So we can only rely on certified true copies.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Well, anyway, your redirect has been deferred. So let
us see...
REP. LIBARIOS. That is why we are requesting if the defense could present to us the
original copy. At least a duplicate original copy.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The defense should try its very best to do so. And if it
cannot be produced tomorrow, we will proceed with the other two witnesses.
REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, before we adjourn, we have requested for a subpoena
duces tecum to two witnesses for them to produce certain documents. And earlier,
we requested that those documents be returned and deposited with the Secretary
General. May I request now that at least Yolanda Ricaforte be summoned to this
Body to produce the documents so that we will know what kind of documents she
has produced.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. May we request a page of the Senate to notify Yolanda
Ricaforte and to bring them here....
REP. APOSTOL. Including the other witness, Anton Prieto.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. --and the other witness, Prieto, to bring them here and
to turn over the documents covered by the subpoena duces tecum for each one of
them for safekeeping by the Senate Secretary.
REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, are we made also to...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
SEN. ROCO. Mr. Chief Justice, on a procedural matter, I am trying to facilitate.
Yesterday, Mr. Chief Justice, during the preliminary conference, we had objected as
a judge to all this use of affidavit that cannot be seen. And it was agreed upon by the
parties that affidavit in fact should be avoided. And that they should therefore be
narrated by the witnesses because affidavits can be prepared by lawyers or it can be
prepared by whomsoever and affidavits do not speak. The narrations in the affidavits
should be asked from the witness, and that was agreed upon in the preliminary
conference, Mr. Chief Justice. And we suggest that counsels should take note of the
preliminary conference agreement otherwise we will really be delayed.
So if we may, we are asking as a judge, that we adhere to the agreements of the
preliminary conference. They should have been made to narrate whatever it was that
you want to be narrated. Now, Mr. President, I think, just by way of manifestation, to
adhere to what we agreed on yesterday.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the counsel, both for the proseuction and the
defense are so advised accordingly to adhere strictly to the agreement yesterday to
avoid any further delay.
REP. APOSTOL. We will do that, Your Honor, but I also remembered that the draft of
what have been agreed yesterday should be furnished both parties with the copies of
the same. We have not seen the draft of the copies of what have been agreed
yesterday.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice, for the information of counsel, the
copies were distributed yesterday. And if by any chance, he did not get a copy, don't
blame me but you can get your copy as soon as we are through. We have copies for
all of us.
REP. APOSTOL. I appreciate the Senate President.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. And maybe, Mr. Chief Justice, we can excuse Mr.
Lastimoso from the witness chair because I saw
Ms. Yolanda Ricaforte come in, as well as Mr. Anton Prieto, Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the request is granted.
SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator-Judge Osmeña.
REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, may we request that...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. For awhile, the Chair had recognized Senator Judge
Osmeña.
SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, the affidavit of Gen. Lastimoso refers to a
ledger. May we know if we will be furnished with that ledger? Because we are now
given an affidavit which refers to a ledger and certain amounts in the ledger and we
still have not received the ledger. May we know if the prosecution will be furnishing
us with the ledger soon?
REP. APOSTOL. We are requesting for a copy of that ledger from Yolanda Ricaforte
so we can reproduce them and we will distribute… Whatever we will get today from
Yolanda Ricaforte, we will reproduce them for an average of about 25 copies and we
will distribute them to the Judges.
SEN. OSMEÑA (S). Thank you.
back to top
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. So, witness Lastimoso is excused in the meantime and
the Chair calls for the subpoenaed
witness, Yolanda Ricaforte.
REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, of course we are ready to present our next witness but
it is already seven o'clock. So, we will just check on the documents as per our
request.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. We will make formal the turnover of the
documents. Let her first take the stand.
REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate Secretary should administer the oath.
THE SENATE SECRETARY. You, Yolanda Ricaforte, do swear that the evidence
you shall give in this case now pending
between the Philippines and Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President of the Philippines,
shall be the truth , the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God.
MS. RICAFORTE. Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Qualify your witness, Prosecutor Apostol.
REP. APOSTOL. May I know your name please?
MS. RICAFORTE. I am Yolanda T. Ricaforte, Filipino, married, I am residing at
Quezon City, and I am married to Undersecretary Rex Ricaforte of the Department of
Tourism.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The specific address please in Quezon City.
MS. RICAFORTE. No. 25 Freedom Avenue, Veterans Village, Barangay Pasong
Tamo, Quezon City.
REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You may now proceed.
REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, we requested this witness to sit down on the witness
stand merely to produce the ledger. We will conduct our direct examination tomorrow.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. Would you just lay the predicate for the production
of the documents now for the formal turnover to the Secretary?
REP. APOSTOL. If Your Honor please.
Mrs. Ricaforte, we requested for a subpoena duces tecum for you to produce the
original of the ledger which was brought before the Senate before in the hearing on
October 30, 2000. Did you, in fact, bring this ledger?
MS. RICAFORTE. I have here the listahan from August ....
REP. APOSTOL. May we request that there be an interpreter upon the request of the
witness because she would like to testify in Tagalog.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The testimony, is that in Filipino or Tagalog?
MS. RICAFORTE. Tagalog po.
REP. APOSTOL. Tagalog. It is not official.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Because if it is in Filipino, I understand that the
Stenographers can take down the notes in
Filipino, being a national language. So, do you need an interpreter? I understand you
can speak in English. Why don't you directly testify in English or in Filipino?
MS. RICAFORTE. Tagalog na lang po. I prefer Tagalog, Sir. Yes Sir.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then testify in Filipino or English.
REP. APOSTOL. She said, Your Honor, that she would like to testify in Tagalog and
she needs an interpreter.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, no, if you can really speak in English, why don't you
speak in English to avoid any delay. It is only the production of a document and the
marking, after which the turnover thereof in the meantime to the Secretary of the
Senate.
REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, may I now ask the question.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
REP. APOSTOL. Did you bring with you the ledger which we requested per
subpoena duces tecum?
MS. RICAFORTE. Opo, nandito po ang original copy noong listahan.
REP. APOSTOL. May we request that this ledger be marked as Exhibit C and the
succeeding pages be marked as Exhibits C-1, C-2,and so on.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. How many pages?
REP. APOSTOL. We will count, Your Honor.
SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Honorable....
SEN. ENRILE. I would like to clarify the question. The question of the distinguished
prosecutor is, he was asking about a ledger but the answer of the witness is listahan.
Is there any identity between the listahan and the ledger?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, there is query now.
MRS. RICAFORTE. Oho. Ito ho ay....
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is it directed to the prosecutor or to the witness?
SEN. ENRILE. I want an explanation whether the....Because the question asked for a
ledger, and then the answer of the witness is she brought a listahan.
REP. APOSTOL. May I know, Your Honor....
SEN. ENRILE. Because a ledger in accounting is a very special kind of a material, of
a document.
REP. APOSTOL. May I know, Your Honor, if the question of His Honor, the Senator,
is directed to this representation or to the witness?
SEN. ENRILE. I want a clarification regarding the question of the prosecutor and the
answer of the witness. Because, as a judge, I would like to know whether the ledger
that has been subpoenaed is the same as this listahan or that listahan is the ledger.
REP. APOSTOL. Then, I will ask the question, Your Honor.
I ask you the question to produce the ledger and you produced the so-called listahan.
What do you understand by ledger? Is it the same as listahan?
MRS. RICAFORTE. Sa akin po, ordinaring listahan lang po itong aking hawak. I don't
consider this as ledger.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who has been designated as interpreter?
REP. APOSTOL. Nobody. But I would like to volunteer if she is talking in Waray.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Now, we should get the permission from the honorable
Senators-Judges if you'd be allowed also to act as interpreter. Anybody from the
Senate who can act as interpreter?
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice… I am sorry.
SEN. DRILON. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
SEN. DRILON. If the witness will testify in Tagalog or in Filipino, we do not need an
interpreter because all of us here understand Tagalog or Filipino.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The problem is, can this be taken down in stenographic
notes?
SEN. DRILON. I think, it can be taken down.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We have the assurance that whether the testimony be
in English, Tagalog or Filipino, it can be taken in stenographic notes, then probably
we can allow.
SEN. DRILON. Yes, our stenographers, Mr. Chief Justice, in the Senate can take the
stenographic notes in Tagalog, in Filipino, in English.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Okay, then, you may proceed.
REP. APOSTOL. So, if Your Honor will allow, we will have the so-called listahan be
the one marked as Exhibit "A", I mean, "C", then "C-1", "C-2", "C-3" and so forth.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. We will complete the marking of the pages because that
will be left with the Secretary.
REP. APOSTOL. Just a minute, Your Honor, the problem is, well, there is another
question.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, there is another question from Honorable Enrile.
SEN. ENRILE. I would like to beg the indulgence of the Chair. Mr. Chief Justice, the
subpoena duces tecum that was requested and served referred to a ledger. Now,
what we are being presented with is listahan. Is the prosecution, Mr. Chief Justice,
satisfied that their request for a subpoena duces tecum is properly served with the
presentation of this listahan?
REP. APOSTOL. Yes. We will be satisfied, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You will be satisfied. So you will have it marked now.
REP. APOSTOL. May we request now, Your Honor, that this so-called listahan be
marked as Exhibit "C" and we will count the pages....
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is granted. Let the entire document be
marked as Exhibit "C", then the succeeding pages as Exhibit "C-1" up to the end,
whatever will be the number. Please initial after the marking.
REP. APOSTOL. Your Honors, may we be allowed to compare, in the meantime, the
so-called listing or journal that we have in our possession which is actually a certified
true copy coming from the Senate and the so-called listahan or ledger which was
brought by the witness?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. May we be clarified on that manifestation?
REP. APOSTOL. We are requesting, Your Honor, that we be allowed to compare
with the so-called listahan or ledger that we are...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. To compare?
REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor, because ...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That may be done later. Because the only purpose now
for the production of the witness before us is for her to produce what is the subject
matter of the subpoena duces tecum in order that the same be, in the meantime,
deposited.
REP. APOSTOL. Yes. In the meantime, since we have not compared with our copy
which we got from the Senate, we will defer our request for marking of this exhibit
which the witness has brought.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. No, because she brought it pursuant to a subpoena
duces tecum and you want it to be kept in the custody of the Secretary, and we have
it to be marked in order that the Secretary may not be blamed later on of whatever
may happen to the exhibits. You can take the proper move later on.
REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor. The Secretary can put his own signature or
marking.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, that's it. We will proceed with the marking.
REP. APOSTOL. Yes. But we request that we defer this exhibit to be marked as our
own exhibit.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Proceed with the marking.
REP. APOSTOL. The Secretary, Your Honor, is marking.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will please announce later up to what
number is the submarking.
SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Enrile.
SEN. ENRILE. Mr. Chief Justice, in order to prevent any wrangling later on, may I ask
the prosecutors if they would put into the record that indeed, what they requested via
the subpoena duces tecum that was issued was for the presentation of a ledger, and
that what the witness has brought is not a really a ledger but a listahan consisting of
several pages.
REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor. We will put it on record that what we requested
per subpoena duces tecum is a ledger.
SENATOR ENRILE. But what was presented now is a document which the witness
calls a listahan.
REP. APOSTOL. Yes, Your Honor. We are willing to have that on record.
SEN. ENRILE. Thank you.
REP. APOSTOL. Our request for subpoena is a ledger. I think she understands what
is a ledger because, I understand, she is a Commerce graduate and she brought it
and says this is a listahan.
SEN. ENRILE. In addition, I would like to find out if the distinguished prosecutor
would want to correct his statement that he also calls the document a "journal" and I
do not think that is a journal.
REP. APOSTOL. Well, I remember I have not said any "journal" but if....
SEN. ENRILE. No, the record will bear me out.
REP. APOSTOL. If I did utter that word, I am withdrawing
that word.
SEN. ENRILE. Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Withdrawn.
SEN. GUINGONA. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Guingona.
SEN. GUINGONA. I hope I will not add to the confusion. But what we understood,
Mr. Chief Justice, was that the prosecutor asked for time to compare whether the
document that they asked for subpoena is indeed the same as the listahan and I
think the honorable Presiding Officer granted that request already.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The idea really of the marking now would only be forSEN. GUINGONA. Yes, preliminary, but....
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. --identification of the documents once deposited.
SEN. GUINGONA. Yes, under that condition, Mr. Chief Justice, because that was
what they requested as far as I recall.
REP. LIBARIOS. Mr. Chief Justice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
REP. LIBARIOS. Since we have already caused the marking of the.... We will wait
until the final marking.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Chair has been waiting for it. It is about to be
finished.
REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, the marking is from.... Actually, it is 13 pages.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirteen pages. So that means "C", "C-1" to "C-12".
REP. APOSTOL. So may I reiterate our request that this document which the witness
calls a "listahan," which we call a "ledger" be, in the meantime, kept here for
safekeeping with the Secretary General.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. As earlier stated by the Chair, the motion will be
granted and is now granted. The witness is directed to turn over the marked exhibits
to the Secretary of the Senate for the latter to keep. However, the witness is advised
to come back tomorrow for the continuation of her testimony.
REP. APOSTOL. So may we request now, Your Honor, that if it is possible for the
Senate to have these xerox-copied, if not, we will do it, of course, if the defense is
willing too.
May I know if the Senate will copy these?
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice, we volunteer to do that but probably,
we will be ready with the copies tomorrow. Is that all right with the members of the
court?
REP. APOSTOL. We would like to have a copy, Your Honor, today so we can
actually study it.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Chief Justice, immediately after adjournment, we will
provide the prosecution copies.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you very much for that assurance.
REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, we are ready with two witnesses but I understand
that....
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. You mean tomorrow?
REP. APOSTOL. Even today but I do not want to....
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It is already 7:24 in the evening.
REP. APOSTOL. In that case, then we will move for the continuance.
REP. LIBARIOS. One last item, Your Honor. Since the exhibits are already marked
by the prosecution, may we request, Your Honor, that the exhibits be now turned
over to prosecution -- the original exhibits, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. What exhibits are you referring to, the exhibit produced
by the witness?
REP. LIBARIOS. The listahan, Your Honor, the listahan.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The request of the other Counsel- Prosecutor Apostol is
only to have this deposited in the meantime. So it should be deposited.
REP. LIBARIOS. Under the Rules, Your Honor, once the exhibits are already marked
by either party, then that party requesting the exhibits be marked should now be in
the proper custody of the said documents, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you trying to overturn the request of Prosecutor
Apostol? [Laughter]
REP. LIBARIOS. No, because we would like to review, extensively the original, Your
Honor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Then you can come tomorrow early morning.
REP. LIBARIOS. It belongs to the witness.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will stick to the earlier request which was
already granted by the court.
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Yes.
REP. APOSTOL. Your Honors, aside from this witness, may we request that Anton
Prieto be also directed to be present tomorrow.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Where is Mr. Prieto?
THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Mr. Prieto is there.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Mr. Prieto is directed to come back tomorrow at two
o'clock in the afternoon and to be ready to testify. Okay then, the Majority Leader.
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Mr. Chief Justice, before I move to suspend, may I
manifest that in connection with the resolution of this court denying the Motion to
Quash, the following Senators have filed concurring opinions: Senators Cayetano,
Legarda-Leviste and Ople on the December 1, 2000; Senators Enrile and Sotto on
December 4, 2000; Senators Aquino-Oreta, Tatad and Honasan on December 5,
2000.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The concurring opinions announced are noted.
SUSPENSION OF IMPEACHMENT TRIAL
THE MAJORITY LEADER. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Unless the Chair has
something more to say, I move that the Impeachment Trial stand in recess until
tomorrow, Friday, December 8, 2000, at two o'clock in the afternoon.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The order of the Chair will be suspended until tomorrow
afternoon.
REP. APOSTOL. Your Honor, the witness is still sitting on the witness stand.
[Laughter] May we...
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Oh, I am sorry. The witness is excused, but to come
back tomorrow at two o'clock. [Laughter]
Suspended. It was 7:27 p.m.