BIG NEWS:RUMESBAK NA ATTY. POA AT SISON PROSECUTOR KAKASUHAN NA? EBIDENSIYA IPAPAKITA NA SA HEARING!

[0:00] what seems to be an unregulated and unbridled exercise of statements that will or that can [0:17] be made before the public before the different fora platforms to borrow the words of the lead [0:23] prosecutor in in respect of the relaxation of rule 18 we would like to i'm sure that the court [0:32] understands this the essence of the subjudicial rule really is not of uh not limited to the practical [0:39] value of regulating the proceeding it actually goes into the integrity or maintaining the integrity of [0:48] the proceedings that's why parties are generally prohibited from speaking about the merits of the [0:54] case before third parties before the media and outside the court because it runs or every [1:01] statement runs the risk of tainting the integrity of the proceedings now i know and we understand that [1:09] the justification for not even a relaxation but what seems to be an entire abandonment of rule 18 [1:20] relating to the prosecution's allegations and articles [1:23] uh one confidential funds and article four on grave threats and article three uh bribery uh that seems [1:35] to us we don't know and um i find it difficult to understand how and how that uh ruling or abandonment [1:43] of rule 18 even as this trial is still ongoing and uh while parties are still litigating this case on the [1:51] remaining article will contribute to maintaining the integrity of these proceedings if at all [1:57] we now have what seems to be a what is this called uh in ordinary parlance an ffa a free for all [2:10] a free for all type of um accusing the respondent anywhere and everywhere so we actually object to the abandonment of [2:25] rule 18 if we are to be true and faithful to the rational and wisdom of the subjudicial rule that not [2:34] only permeates this court it permeates the entire judicial system because it is needed to maintain the [2:42] integrity of the proceedings there should not be any single instance or occasion that this should be [2:47] abandoned in the middle of trial and right before or before the defense or respondent presents her case [2:58] and possibly the the the gravest consequence that this now uh uh uh causes uh to this entire proceeding [3:09] is this the abandonment of rule 18 and on the rule against uh subjudicial statements or out of court [3:16] statements of the parties um complainants and etc uh comes at the heel of the prosecution's um withdrawal [3:28] of the articles of impeachment in which they had already presented and completed their presentation [3:35] and now the abandonment of rule 18 binds both parties both the prosecution [3:43] and um and um the respondent now uh i know that the the the court will say that well uh the respondent's [3:53] given the equal opportunity to do as she pleases um with respect to the allegations she can say a lot [3:59] of things she can you know use all the platforms in the words of the lead prosecutor uh to avail of [4:08] these platforms to present her evidence um through these platforms uh i'm sorry your honor when the [4:15] vice president was held to this formal proceeding and in this court and the honorable members of this [4:21] court took their um oath uh senators judges uh the respondent really envisioned a fair and impartial um [4:29] proceeding geared only to one and one one and one and and that is what justice now whatever [4:36] uh justice means for both sides or for each one of us a lahat ng mga nakikinig sa atin dito [4:42] uh batay sa ating kanya kanyang paniniwala sa tingin ko walang uh pag-iimbot na dapat [4:48] nating tanggapin ang lahat ng prosesong dapat na pagdadaanan ng pagbilitis na ito ay dapat na [4:55] ayon din sa batas at sa garantiya na binibigay ng ating konstitusyon now um we've heard also over and over again [5:04] uh expediency or the practicality of the proceedings that's why it would seem to me that's why [5:11] uh we're asking for a copy of the extended ruling that may clarify um your honor if by the extended [5:20] ruling is the respondent now explicitly being prohibited from um presenting um any evidence [5:26] without confirming um to this court whether or not um we intend to present anything um just so mapanggan [5:33] din ng ating taong bayan is the respondent now explicitly being prohibited from presenting or [5:40] from making decisions um with respect to her presentation of um her evidence in chief by that [5:47] extended ruling the effect of council of that ruling is that since um articles 1 3 and 4 will not be [5:59] adjudicated upon by the court nor put to a vote um it does not prevent the respondent from making [6:08] concomitant manifestations in regard to it but with respect to presenting evidence on the withdrawn [6:16] articles um based on the precedent in the corona ruling and the and the and the citations um quoted by [6:24] the court um it would serve no useful what purpose would it serve counsel can you kindly um enlighten [6:32] the members of the court so that we would also see on the respondent's point yes your honor i have [6:38] here the corona president there's a big big difference between the corona being cited as president and to [6:44] justify whatever prohibition that this court will apply on the respondent on how to proceed with the [6:50] presentation of her case in chief on february 28 2012 the lead prosecutor tupas manifested that they [6:57] will no longer be presenting evidence for five of the eight articles of impeachment and later on it was [7:02] clarified to be a withdrawal of those five articles the prosecution asked for time to file their foe or [7:09] formal offer of evidence and the following day the prosecution requested for um some days to file their [7:15] foe which was actually granted by the court and then the defense moved for and was granted [7:20] five days to file their comment upon receipt of the foe now um unlike in this case in the corona trial [7:28] the withdrawal was done before the prosecution presented any evidence on those articles here your [7:37] honor there is no doubt the prosecution took their time and completed their presentation and now [7:46] what we now want to impart to the public is this is her vice president she was tried held to the court [7:54] on alleged indictment charges upon articles for articles of impeachment and the prosecution consisting of [8:01] the public and prosecutors from the present um uh congress of the house of representatives [8:09] and uh with the addition of the panel for prosecution consisting of private prosecutors they did all this [8:16] they presented their evidence the court allowed them um time gave them opportunity gave them platform but [8:25] now since they withdrew your vice president can no longer speak or defend herself from those allegations um may [8:34] we just put on record that um just for the record your honor we find that not only a bit unfair i would say [8:42] it's completely unfair but um whether this is something that the court will again consider on its own [8:52] uh or ruminate on it um perhaps uh today or um in the subsequent days uh or while the formal offer and the [9:00] comment of the respondent to the uh to that formal offer is spending um i think we we all have to ask [9:09] ourselves are we what is it that uh we are okay so in your cash audit you you determined the undeclared [9:23] cash as the difference between the cash balance per bank and the cash declared in the salen correct [9:30] okay and you assume that the cash per salen is zero under that item thank you sir because the account [9:41] cash was not specified in the salen correct you did not also consider in that uh in that specific [9:52] report only on cash that the cash was slumped somewhere in the salen correct naisip ko po possible [9:59] okay okay thank you sir um now your report uh categorize the supposed bank accounts of the [10:08] vice president and her husband into four uh can i just ask permission to drink water okay sir uh you [10:33] can also drink water sir thank you pa your report categorize the supposed bank accounts into four table [10:42] one table one table one uh are the supposed accounts of the vice president correct table two are the [10:55] supposed accounts of manasa scarpeo correct table three are the supposed joint accounts held by the [11:04] respondent and mr manasa scarpeo correct that's right and table four uh are the supposed accounts of [11:13] 888 bistro which is a sole proprietorship of mr carpeo correct okay going back to all of this table [11:22] sir the names of the account holders do not appear as a separate column in each of the tables correct you [11:29] can uh go through each of the tables sir ah po nakalagay lang po yung account number po yes po thank you [11:36] uh furthermore uh furthermore there was no separate column in table one showing uh let's go to table one [11:44] sir showing whether the listed accounts of the bvp are held singly or with another person correct [11:51] siya lang po yung nakapangalan po doon but it did not refer to any account names or as reflected in the [12:01] bank statement po nakareflict naman po yung account number account number sinabi po namin na accounts niya po ito so [12:06] but okay uh can detect uh the person in the tech booth please uh remove the document as earlier [12:21] agreed kindly um who's in the tech booth again attorney is it dave david well david similar to your [12:30] request with the prosecution kindly redact the account numbers okay kindly redact all the account numbers [12:38] before flashing them on screen that's also for the respondent now i'll go back to my question sir table [12:47] one does not show the names of the account holders as reflected in the bank statements only the account [12:55] number doesn't show the name yes sir um kindly uh i have to stop you on that okay so yes so that table [13:07] does not contain the names of the account holders now one of the or among the documents that are to [13:19] be examined in a forensic accounting are the kyc documents correct and your report does not contain [13:31] uh sir can you please answer the question one of the documents that should be examined in a forensic [13:38] audit audit are the kyc documents okay thank you sir and uh your report as it is now does not contain [13:49] any information on the kyc documents that you examine only correct when there is one provided by the bank [13:56] po yung mga na-examine naming kyc so you're saying that there's no kyc that were provided to you sir [14:03] meron pong meron pong meron po kaming kyc na natanggap po meron merong kyc na natanggap but not for all [14:11] the banks sir okay so you completed your examination uh without examining all of the kyc's of this [14:18] map available available documents okay thank you sir thank you for that answer now so that is the reason why [14:27] the kyc information are not reflected in your report correct that's right thank you sir now sir you [14:38] mentioned that you reviewed the year-end balances of each of the bank accounts that's right but you [14:45] did not conduct your own confirmation as to the nature of of these accounts with the banks correct [14:52] of course i know i know the answer to that because you were not authorized by the account holders you [14:57] answered your question thank you sir and of course you were not also given authority to send [15:07] confirmation letters to the banks correct that's why no confirmation letters were also sent to these [15:13] banks which you examined okay okay sir uh yeah that yes sir that is uh that is already uh known to [15:24] everyone now with that sir you were not given any authority to inquire into any outstanding loans of [15:33] the vp and her husband that's right but you were not given copies of loan documents from the bank if any [15:41] correct and you were also not given uh copies of other bank documents aside from those that were provided [15:52] to you by the prosecution okay thank you sir sir uh did you examine each and every transaction uh in the bank [16:17] documents that were furnished to you sir as much as we can pop it a very limited po yung uh yun time [16:23] pero as much as we can uh we did what we could with the bank okay thank you sir um because we did not see [16:36] any statement here in your report that you examined all of the bank transactions of the vice president and [16:43] her spouse one by one yes yes transaction uh uh meron hinanap meron po kami mga hinanap sa mga eliminations [16:51] so pero bawat isang transaction po uh examine each and every transaction you were not able to examine [16:58] all of those sir uh ang in-examine po namin ay ano po yung uh inflows tapos ano po yung mga dapat [17:05] tanggalin po dun sa okay sir so in short sir as you have said earlier hanggang kaya lang so you [17:12] were not able to examine all of the bank documents each and every transaction uh stated in the bank [17:19] documents uh that were provided to you by the prosecution kung ano po yung naibigay lamang po [17:24] sa amin yun lang po ang pwede naming pagbasihan eh okay thank you sir um did you also check sir whether the [17:34] signature of the vice president appeared in the documents that you examined yes pa uh did you check [17:44] whether her signatures appear in the uh acquisition of manager's checks [17:55] application form yeah i'm sorry yes sir i will rephrase that question yes the application form i'm [18:00] referring to that sir the application form concerning the application of manager's checks [18:06] wala po siyang signature doon pero yung pangalan niya lang po yung nakalagay so in short based on the [18:10] documents that you examined the vice president has no signature in all of the applications for [18:17] managers checks in the documents that you examined ito po ba yung sa kanilang joint bank accounts po later [18:22] will go to that sir okay uh you also uh examined the the signature of the vice president in the renewal [18:33] of her signature cards if such document was furnished to you sir apa but there was no mention here in [18:43] yung kyc pa yung kyc update niya pa update yes sir ah yung kyc update niya yes you you were able [18:50] to examine those sir but there was no mention here of the examination done by you sir of those [18:56] updated kyc documents am i correct parang hindi ko po nabanggit dito yung updated kyc documents [19:05] now now now in examining the bank accounts sir of the vice president you considered the bank accounts [19:19] that were singly um owned by mr manasa scarpio correct that's right and uh this is found [19:28] under tables two and four of your of your report sir okay but do you have any personal knowledge [19:40] whether the vice president actually knew the existence of this account personal knowledge [19:48] to set the record straight sir this examination of the bank balances that you made this was made [19:59] without hearing the side of the account owners specifically the spouse's carpio as mentioned [20:06] po documents lang po tinignan namin salamat po it did not consider also the inputs comments and [20:13] clarifications of this spouses as you had mentioned sir it did not also consider the side of the former [20:22] president rodrigo roa duterte with respect to the account or accounts that he singly owned and or jointly [20:28] held with the vice president correct tama po you also did not consider the pass books and other [20:35] documents in possession of the respondent and her spouse additional cash po na hindi namin [20:42] those back i will refer i will repeat my question sir you did not also consider uh the bank documents in [20:50] possession of the respondent in in in your report that you receive copies of the amlc reports correct [21:09] but nowhere in the computation of the cash balances were the amlc reports mentioned correct [21:20] okay um it is because if you agree with me the computation of cash balance is based on actual cash flows [21:31] correct and not merely on supposed total inflows and outflows correct amlc po ba pinag-usapan [21:40] yes sir ah yung amlc po pagnatag nila yes sir but the amlc report was not considered in your report [21:48] in so far as determining the net assets of the respondent is concerned thank you sir so you agree [21:58] with me also that the amount of i hope you bear with me sir the amount of inflows of 1.1 billion [22:05] 630.351.630.351.607.68 supposed inflows do not appear in your report [22:25] saan po nanggaling yung amlc po ah iba po yung total nila eh okay sir thank you [22:30] thank you sir because as you said earlier their totals are not considered in computing the net [22:38] assets of the respondent correct tama pa thank you and it's the same with the supposed outflows [22:45] from the amlc which is 1 billion 308 million 123 thousand 526.68 pesos the same does not appear [22:58] in your forensic report thank you sir sir let's go to the investments uh portion and the insurance [23:21] uh as a lawyer sir um i am sure you're aware of section 3 ra 10607 or the insurance code we will [23:33] show uh the provision on screen tech please can can it be zoomed sir i hope you can see that [23:49] but nevertheless i will read the provision sir section 3 of ra 10607 otherwise known as the [23:57] insurance code it says that any contingent or unknown event whether past or future which may [24:05] damnify a person having an insurable interest or create a liability against him may be insured against [24:14] subject to the provisions of this chapter and then the second sentence says the consent of the spouse is [24:20] not necessary for the validity of an insurance policy taken out by a married person on his or her life [24:27] or that of his children i hope that is uh uh clear now sir based on this section the consent of the spouse is [24:39] and is unnecessary when the other spouse takes out an insurance policy correct and you have no personal [24:49] knowledge sir whether the vice president actually knew about the policies or insurance policies that were [24:56] taken out by manasa escarpio ang knowledge lang po namin is absolute community of property yes sir but on the [25:03] actual knowledge of the vice president as to this insurance you have no knowledge you have no personal [25:08] information or personal knowledge about this about about whether the vp has actual knowledge of this [25:14] insurance policies of mr carpio whether the okay thank you sir now let's go to the business interest sir [25:37] um page tensor of the report did you find it sir thank you for the business interest under letter c sir [26:05] you mentioned here uh in the first paragraph second sentence i hope you can follow sir that to accurately [26:15] report the value of a business a formal valuation exercise should be conducted however you you continued [26:25] for lack of information and material time to conduct such valuation exercise we were conservatively used as [26:32] evaluation of valuation her interest in business and of her spouse now i i'll stop on that because we will [26:40] have we will tackle all of this now based on based on uh this statement sir due to lack of material time [26:50] you did not conduct a valuation exercise formal valuation exercise okay sir thank you sir [26:57] and am i correct to say sir that from the moment that you were furnished copies of the [27:06] bank documents on september 8th after rather september 8th around the second week of september 8th [27:14] and then uh up to the time that you finished your report in october 2 is that correct sir did you finish [27:21] your report in october 2 so from the second week of september to october 2 you barely had two [27:30] weeks to finish three weeks to finish the forensic report sir is that correct september to october 2 [27:37] september second week three weeks okay around three weeks okay we'll take that answer sir so yes sir [27:46] uh so we will so your forensic report was done in a matter of around three weeks correct that's the [27:55] complete examination of the complete examination of the documents that those are the documents that came [28:08] from the sec right sec amla but you said earlier that accounts okay okay [28:15] but in forensic report okay okay okay sir we take that but in so far as the bank accounts are [28:22] concerned you only had uh three weeks to examine all of those bank accounts okay thank you sir [28:32] now in computing the supposed in computing the supposed business interest of the vp you focus on [28:40] these two corporations i'm talking about the business interest sir the gen corp industries inc you can [28:47] uh look at uh look at your notes and then cali cali 888 foods corporation correct metro city [28:54] chow din pa uh i'm i'm i'm i'm still on page tensor interest in businesses [29:04] uh appa appa cali po alleged interest in businesses now i'm just reading your report sir so yeah so alleged [29:13] interest in businesses so in computing wala pong nakalagay na alleged sa report ko pa [29:18] uh that's uh that's our position uh that's our position uh that's our position sir i'm sorry so you [29:30] consider these two corporations the gen corp industries inc and cali 88 foods corporation now in computing [29:40] the business interest of uh the vp you considered or the capital investments in uh [29:52] gen corp we're on gen corp sir okay the capital investments in uh gen corp you formulated uh table [30:07] 15 sir let's go to table 15 okay but before that sir uh preliminary questions the gen corp uh gen corp [30:24] gen corp was mentioned in the vice president's 2024 and 2025 salen that was your position but that was [30:32] my observation yes sir um but you also observed that according to you there was no valuation that can [30:43] be found in the salen correct now we are showing you copies of the 2024 2025 salen we will not uh show [30:51] copies of these documents on we will only show these documents to the witness okay now we are showing [30:57] you copies of the 2024 and 2025 salen sir let's go to page four let's go to page four on business [31:09] interest and financial connections on page four sir would you agree with me that that section in the salen [31:22] does not include a column of acquisition cost of shares of stock [31:25] thama po mag-appear po siya dapat doon sa investments um sir i'm only asking with respect [31:31] to that for both the years 2024 and 2025 okay but nonetheless you allege in your report that the value of [31:40] the respondent vice president's business interest were not reported in the salen because of lack of [31:46] valuation in that uh column sir in in uh that portion dito po siya dapat sabihin nilagay i'm asking only [31:54] about that doon sa page na yun po wala po okay but dito po wala rin po nakalagay okay sir thank you [31:59] sir so the answer is there is no uh indication of cost in that particular column thank you sir now in [32:08] computing the supposed business interest of the vp in gencorp you considered two items sir uh the first item [32:18] is the supposed amount of investment per gis okay the second is a derived capital contribution when you [32:28] say derived capital contributions or correct me if i'm wrong or i at least i have heard this also from [32:34] your council that derived capital is what we call also as an attributed capital correct okay attributed [32:42] capital in fact your team came up with an attributed capital of the vp in gencorp at 20 percent [32:50] and this 20 percent attribution was based on the assumption that the vp and her spouse exercise [32:59] significant influence over gencorp correct cvp lang po cvp okay vp yes vp exercised significant influence [33:09] over gencorp and the second reason for this attribution is that uh the the vice president [33:18] owns or has equity of 20 percent in metro chow city foods corporation hindi lang po yun [33:24] pero tama po kayo na part po yun okay sir thank you sir but that attribution or assumption was not based on [33:33] any contract or document that you have examined wala pong kontrata okay thank you sir it was not based [33:39] on any deed of assignment or deed of subscription or any subscription agreement which was made available [33:46] to you for your examination correct tama po because nothing was made available to you for your examination [33:53] tama po yung absence po ng document ay ebidensya rin po sa amin yan okay sir thank you [33:58] thank you now despite of any written contract deed of assignment or subscription agreement you still [34:04] opine that the vp has 20 percent ownership in gencorp correct tama po thank you now let's go to table 15 [34:14] let's refer to the paid up capital in the second column sir for the years 2022 to 2024 that column [34:25] mentions that the vp has paid up capital of 300 000 in gencorp correct apa but okay sir [34:37] okay uh okay uh okay ito po is that correct okay before i'll i'll ask my next question can the [34:47] witness um be provided with copies of the gis of gencorp for 2022 to 2025 we are showing you copies of [34:55] documents of or gis of gencorp for this particular year sir now there is a 300 000 uh paid up capital [35:04] under that column sir but uh for the year uh okay i will finish until 2025 also for the year 2025 there is [35:17] a paid up capital of 262 500 pesos sir correct sa gis pa hindi sa table po in the table sorry sir yes in the [35:30] table that you uh provided yes sir in your report okay now that 300 000 pesos paid up capital cannot be found [35:43] or the okay the 2024 okay sir yeah thank you for answering so you confirm you confirm sir that all of [35:52] these paid up capital under under under the second column of table 15 of your report cannot be found [36:01] in the gis of gencorp thank you sir now let's go to the paid up capital of manasa scarpio in gencorp also [36:10] that is in the third column of table 15 can can you find it sir hindi po siya paid up capital it's paid up [36:20] capital by spouse by spouse by spouse okay okay so ano po ito sa kali 88 po yata okay thank you so [36:30] this is for college okay sir now let's go to another point sir let's go to the calculated capital [36:42] contribution to gencorp in the fourth column calculated capital contribution to gencorp you indicated the [36:51] amount of 35 million per year okay okay is it correct to say sir that it is an assigned capital [36:59] assigned capital assigned capital yes what do you mean sorry or no i'm just asking if it's correct but [37:07] it's more uh appropriate to say that it's an attributed capital attributed capital po sa sensitivity [37:13] analysis okay okay sir thank you sir now that 35 million attributed capital was calculated on the following [37:22] assumptions now i hope you can follow me sir first assumption in your report is that gencorp [37:29] has five jollybee branches hindi po siya assumption nasa receipts po okay sir okay based on the receipts [37:37] that you attach to your report gencorp has five jollybee branches and these branches are in certain center [37:46] point correct correct center point correct center point i will just enumerate them center point [37:53] uh brisa the second branch bolton the third branch gaizano mall the fourth branch and time square plaza [38:03] correct tamapa but these receipts that were attached to your report were only provided to you by the [38:10] prosecution correct correct okay thank you now the second uh assumption that you made is that okay the [38:23] that uh gencorp has five branches based on the official receipts okay that you gathered which show its [38:31] corporate name okay sir to be clear you did not directly inquire from gencorp whether it is the owner of [38:39] this five jollybee branches okay then having found those five receipts you browsed the internet that's [38:49] the desktop research that you were referring to sir you browsed the internet you went to the jollybee [38:55] website correct and found out the initial franchise cost which is 35 million pesos correct [39:03] hindi lang po yung ginawa namin pero ito lang po yung with respect to this available yes sir yes [39:09] sir yes pero nagtanong din po kami sa mga owners lamang wala pong uh okay sir so ito lang po [39:15] ginamit namin yung very low figure na 35 thank you sir for that clarification again your report did not [39:21] say that you made a written inquiry with jollybee foods corporation made an inquiry po uh written inquiry [39:28] uh you just relied on what was shown to you in the web page of jollybee okay thank you sir now given [39:36] the 35 million franchise cost which you researched from the web you now came up with a calculated capital [39:44] contribution to gencorp of 35 million each in all of the four years that were covered in the [39:51] 20 percent po ng five thank you sir and when you add the paid up capital based on the supposed [40:08] or the attributed 20 percent ownership in gencorp and also the paid up capital by spouse in cale 88 and [40:18] also the calculated capital contribution to gencorp based on the franchise amount or cost of jollybee you [40:26] came up with the paid up capital under c1 correct sir okay thank you sir and in so far as this paid up [40:36] capital is concerned the totals reflected therein are in 2022 it's 35 million 359 thousand 375 pesos [40:49] correct and then in 2025 it's 39 million 321 thousand 875 pesos correct now you mentioned in your report [41:17] and confirmed and confirmed now that you did not use any document in possession of the vp and her [41:23] spouse that is right okay am i correct in saying sir that you are not able to get documents from the [41:30] vp herself and her spouse that is answered earlier you were not able to get documents in their possession [41:37] pertaining to gencorp you do not have copies of subscription contracts or subscription agreements [41:44] concerning gencorp's shares with you correct you are not able to examine any deeds of assignment of [41:52] shares of stock involving the shares the supposed shares of the vice president in gencorp correct [41:59] you are not able to examine gencorp stock and transfer book correct you do not have with you or your team [42:06] any stock certificate or stock certificates issued by gencorp to the respondent uh vice president sarah [42:14] duterte correct you are not able to examine gencorp's franchise agreements too correct you did not make [42:22] any inquiry with jollybee foods corporation as to the actual franchise cost of these five jollybee franchises [42:28] in davau and these franchises refer to the franchises of gencorp okay you are not able to obtain copies [42:36] copies of the independent auditor uh you were not able to interview first you were not able to [42:43] interview the independent auditor of gencorp correct the one that issued the qualified opinion pa the [42:49] independent auditor yeah you were not able to obtain copies of her audit working papers audit working [42:57] of the internet of that that belongs to the auditor okay in short this supposed investment in gencorp was [43:05] calculated based on the documents that were provided to you by the prosecution okay and based on all of [43:13] those you attributed the capital of 20 percent to the vice president sarah duterte uh okay thank you [43:21] sir now uh let's go to kala 88 and the supposed advances of manasa scarpio sir um on page 11 sir of your [43:55] report i'm there thank you sir now in computing the supposed advances of manasa scarpio in kala 88 you [44:04] multiplied his supposed percentage of ownership which is 47.5 percent that's right consistent poverty [44:12] with the total amount of advances in kali 8. sorry kali 88 um however however you have neither seen nor [44:23] examined any loan document concerning the supposed advances of manasa scarpio in kali 88 [44:29] dito po yung partner niya si dr lebusada tag 47.5 percent yes sir thank you sir but i'm referring to any [44:37] to your examination of any loan document uh pertaining to the supposed advances of manasa scarpio in kali 88 [44:45] you did not or were not able to examine any loan document meron po sa fs wala pong loan [44:53] document advances po yun eh yeah i will go to that sir not only loan document but any other [44:59] transaction record or records in kali 88 supporting this supposed advances okay thank you sir because [45:09] you have no access to the corporate records and books of accounts of only the financial statements [45:13] po okay thank you sir but despite not having seen any loan document or transaction records or not having [45:21] seen the books of accounts of kali 88 you still find sir that manases has advanced has advances to [45:28] kali 88 totaling i will enumerate sir in 2000 in in 2022 8.7 million correct according to your report in [45:43] 2022 8.7 million in 2023 9.5 million sir in 2024 11.1 million and in 2025 9.5 million sir then based on [45:59] all of these methodologies that you have employed or employed by your team you came up with a summary of [46:06] undeclared properties in table 17 uh that's on page 12 sir correct okay you then opined that out of the [46:21] total properties of the respondent vp only 20 percent were declared by her correct on average [46:30] process yes sir that is and that was based on the methodologies that you okay thank you sir okay sir uh [46:55] i hope you're still okay sir you can do sobrang okay thank you sir um let's go to the undeclared income [47:02] sir reference what page is that attorney christine uh uh it's in the report on page 15 your honor yes [47:16] okay okay undeclared income uh let's go to sorry we will go further table 23 sir third column for your [47:32] easy reference attorney christine let's try to break for lunch at 12 so you try to manage it a bit [47:40] where where you'll end [47:41] yes your honor actually uh we can uh we can pause here your honor [47:50] yeah parang nga mabilang natin exactong dalawang oras ka na nakatayo dyan [47:53] gawin mo ng 12 para exacto nagsimula ka uli ng one tapos hanggang kung anong oras man [47:58] yes your honor we will comply sir we let's go to page 17 sir page 17 on table 23 sir [48:09] i hope uh you have found it already now yes sir uh on the third column sir there's a column that that [48:20] column sir uh says identified bank inflows correct okay under that column sir okay that column the [48:33] amounts that you provided there in sir you do you agree with me sir that you do not actually know the [48:42] nature and sources of these inflows sources but no inflow nature of these inflows uh their deposits [48:49] but of in cash but the sources of this inflows you have no personal i have no personal knowledge on the [48:56] persons who deposited these inflows okay thank you sir on several check payments with blackout names [49:03] let's let's go to page 18 sir on table 24 i hope uh you already saw that sir was your team authorized to [49:16] block them out remove the cover was it your team uh who did that okay it was uh we received it that way [49:23] okay sir thank you sir for that clarification now in account number ending 2743 under [49:37] video account checking po ni mans po you already answered my question sir okay that account sir uh ending 2743 [49:51] sir do not belong to the respondent as you had already mentioned now let's go to this uh lourdes [49:58] lebosada on page 18 item number two okay you said that this lourdes lebosada uh was the dentist of the vice [50:10] president correct correct and uh you appended her photo and the photo of the vice president correct and this [50:19] lourdes is also the payee of the check amounting to 11.35 million correct tama po and amounting [50:27] aggregating po marami pong cheque po yan okay sir thank you sir and even last friday uh you commented [50:33] hindi naman yata ito bayad sa pasta something along those lines it's okay sir um but actually you do [50:44] not have personal knowledge on the purpose of such payment or payments as you said that is correct [50:49] okay thank you sir whether uh those payments were for payment for obligations purchase of property [50:58] you do not actually know the purpose of those payments okay thank you sir the same is true with [51:03] respect to the rest of the pays uh under letter b to f sir wala hindi po namin to ilalagay dito [51:11] kundi po blenak out kaya lang po namin okay sir but you do not have personal knowledge as to the purposes of [51:18] the issuances of checks to these people okay thank you sir now sir let's go to item three uh item three [51:35] on page nine this supposed security bank account number zero three nine two i will not okay that's [51:45] the beginning those are the beginning digits now you do not have personal knowledge on the reasons of the [51:51] fund transfers under this paragraph sir okay sir but the reason for the fund transfers you do not [52:01] know those sir okay thank you sir now let's go sir to uh tinikling number four item four this is the [52:16] alleged kiting of checks under item four sir i i think i already got the answer earlier uh that you [52:25] already that you know also that this is the account of uh the former president with uh the vice [52:33] president sarah duterte now sir on this item sir are you aware that none of the mc's mc application [52:40] forms were signed by the vice i am aware okay thank you sir and you confirm that now thank you [52:50] are you aware also sir that this account uh was held by the former president rodrigo duterte either [52:57] singly or jointly with the vice president thank you sir in any case sir you do not know then the [53:07] purpose of the purchase of these mcs correct yes sir you do not know the purchase of the mc [53:16] pa yes sir you do not have personal knowledge as to the purpose of the purchase of these mcs uh [53:23] we can only observe yes sir but the answer is sorry i have to i have to stop you right there sir [53:29] the answer is yes you do not have personal knowledge personal knowledge on the state [53:33] of mind po is shown by the actions anyway i'll move on sir now with respect to the credit card [53:39] records uh let's go to page 20 sir yes page 20 sir uh actually you referred to the 256 [53:56] thousand eight hundred eighty two point five nike pavilion kl kuala lumpur purchase which you [54:04] mentioned last friday of course okay thank you sir now sir are you aware that this credit card belongs [54:10] to manasa scorpio sir and are you aware that uh the purchases that were made there in was for the [54:18] purpose of providing sports apparel and other items to the basketball team of his son are you aware [54:25] of that not aware okay thank you sir let's go also sir to the ginsat inakaya tokyo expenses uh [54:32] that was also referred to you referred by you in your testimony last friday sir um are you aware sir [54:42] that this expense or this expenses pertain to uh expenses incurred of a large group with manasa [54:53] scorpio while he was traveling with uh this company and because are you aware that the reason [55:03] are you aware that the reason for this is that the members of this group have no available japanese yen with [55:10] them that's why they had to use the credit card of manasa scorpio you're aware of that sir i i don't i'm not [55:17] aware thank you thank you sir you're not so that is yes now sir um in computing the alleged undeclared [55:32] income of the spouses you pierced the veil of corporate fiction of metro city chow and gen corp [55:39] and calia 88 yes sir of course uh that is also in in your report so these four corporations uh sorry [55:52] three corporations um separate juridical entities were pierced and when we say pierce sir okay when we say [56:02] pierce piercing the veil you are setting aside the corporate the separate juridical um personalities of [56:09] these three corporations correct okay because of an alleged fraud no because of your supposed findings [56:20] okay your supposed finding of fraud findings from the numbers yes that is based on your assessment [56:29] your opinion sir my observation point di pusha observation observation okay we will take that answer now [56:41] without declaration of dividends because you pierced the veil already of the three corporate entities [56:47] you imputed 20 percent alleged income in the case of gen corp using the equity balances yes sir [56:57] the one that you identified earlier okay representing the alleged share of the respondent in the income of [57:04] gen corp as well as metro city because metro city has a she has a 20 equity based on your analysis [57:12] okay okay and all of these attributions was because of the supposed fraud that uh your exam that [57:23] uh you're as based on your own assessment sir based on your own assessment there was an alleged or [57:29] supposed fraud that were perpetrated by the respondent using the separate juridical entities [57:36] sir that's why you pierced the veil of corporate fiction [57:40] in your case that is your findings that is your opinion [57:49] anyway um you also mentioned the tax code sir in in um explaining the piercing the veil you also referred [58:00] to the tax code okay where a supposed under declaration in sales of more than 30 percent gives a [58:07] prima facie presumption of fraud is that correct now but you are aware sir that the national [58:15] investigation division in so far as its audit of the books of accounts of and records of the vice [58:22] president and mr manasse scarpeo has not in any way came up with any findings of fraud [58:27] but are you aware sir that uh the spouses scarpeo are not are are being audited by the nid national [58:42] investigation i think po okay okay sir and no case for tax evasion or fraud has been filed against the [58:49] spouses scarpeo by the bir before the doj are you aware of that baka not yet po not yet okay you're not [58:57] aware not aware okay no criminal case for tax evasion or fraud was filed individually against the [59:04] spouses scarpeo before any court in the philip okay finally you agree with me that this is it is only the [59:12] court who can affirm or dismiss any finding of tax evasion or fraud and you are not aware of any judgment [59:22] that was rendered against the spouse scarpeo for any crime involving tax evasion and fraud okay so sir [59:35] your honor i think we this is a good time to have a lunch break it's 12 1 it is a good time um we shall [59:46] break for lunch you've been at it for two hours and one minute so you deserve a rest um we shall break for [59:54] lunch and we shall resume at um 1 pm child is in recess one from these proceedings fairness impartiality [1:00:08] every day we come here we pray nananalangin tayo sa poong may kapal at sa lumikha sa ating lahat [1:00:21] bigyan nyo kami ng lahat ng lakas ng loob at tibay ng didib dibdib talas ng isip tatag ng loob [1:00:33] para tuktin ang aming tungkulin bilang mga public servants bilang mga hukom bilang mga partido bilang [1:00:45] mga abogado bigyan nyo kami ng panahon para sundin kung ano ang sinasabi sa ilalim ng ating saligang [1:00:56] batas everyday we do that ang sa amin lang ho yun hubang extended ruling ngayon um really allows or gives [1:01:07] um that kind of fairness to the vice president and the respondent at hindi lang yun ano this is [1:01:16] not a this is not a selfish ask katulad na sinabi ko kanina whatever it is that we will do here this [1:01:23] will set an example for everyone when someone is held to the court his standard or her standard [1:01:32] will be what he or she had seen here your honor now just um i'll be winding up um uh honorable [1:01:44] luistro the defense has to be raising a reconsideration um it's a manifestation council [1:01:52] it's a manifestation it's a manifestation which the court intends to um [1:01:56] make of note kindly proceed attorney sila kindly let her finish honorable luistro yes your honor [1:02:02] um and given what i had read for the record um one of the affirmative defenses of the respondent is [1:02:09] that um persecution so we will do um without preempting our presentation and whatever it is [1:02:17] whatever objection that the prosecution will have on our presentation we will meet it [1:02:23] uh when the time comes now attorney sila may ask um again for the information of the court and [1:02:32] enlightenment of the court as well again the court recalled the proposal of senator judge bam [1:02:42] this would have been completely avoided if we allowed that but the parties did not agree so after um [1:02:51] the first article like presenting defense um a withdrawal man later on then the objections being [1:02:58] raised by the lead prosecutor would not have any basis correct but the court decided to follow um [1:03:07] the rules given that there was no agreement um between the parties so may the court ask given the [1:03:14] dropping the withdrawal of the articles is there an adjudicative purpose [1:03:21] um involving that uh without um going into the details of our presentation your honor i think the uh [1:03:54] most important adjudicative purpose of this trial really is to provide justice [1:04:00] and i will relate that to the second point that you had made um and this was also something that the [1:04:06] court had already um reminded the prosecution it says that the main duty of the prosecution is not [1:04:13] really to convict but to secure a just conviction and therefore if the conviction is unjust [1:04:21] it should not it should not pursue that conviction now um all we're saying your honor is this why is it [1:04:31] that it would seem now that the defense is being limited to what he uh to what she can only do in terms of her [1:04:44] presentation um of her case in chief and with respect to the earlier suggestion of senator bam [1:05:02] um with due respect i don't think i don't see how that could have affected whatever happened today [1:05:10] because if we did that uh uh uh then or we didn't do it as uh we we really didn't uh [1:05:18] uh mababago ba noon yung ginawa ng prosecution that they completed presentation of their articles on all three uh [1:05:30] uh on on the on articles uh uh uh one and uh four and the order the order yes because you would have been [1:05:42] heard the respondent would have been heard right after the presentation of an article and should they [1:05:50] decide to withdraw later on then both sides would have been heard already that's the unfortunately again [1:05:58] that's not what the rule says and unfortunately to do the parties did not agree with your permission [1:06:03] attorney sheila senator judge bam bam's name was mentioned and alluded to so i'll recognize him for a bit [1:06:10] now on another point uh mr presiding officer uh nice kong linawin no sa both parties kung ano ba yung [1:06:20] pinag-uusapan natin so attorney sheila are you saying that you wish that these articles are not dropped [1:06:28] and that we uh continue as we had originally planned or would you want to talk to your client first if [1:06:37] whether she would prefer that these articles be dropped kasi uh itong disisyon ni presiding officer [1:06:45] by the way i'm gonna ask the same question kay uh honorable jinky rin because nabanggit rin ni presiding [1:06:52] officer na once matupad tong ruling na to hindi na po with prejudice i had to clarify with my [1:06:58] colleagues who are lawyers what that means that means that once these are withdrawn di na to [1:07:02] pwedeng ibalik ulit no the floor is yielded to the fearless leader of um the honorable joc no the lead [1:07:10] prosecutor um honorable louis tres recognized yes ma'am your honor please please allow this representation to [1:07:19] read this manifestation um there is no written submit submitted manifestation correct me if i'm wrong [1:07:26] we understand your honor yes mr presiding officer the honorable senator judges four articles of [1:07:40] impeachment were filed against the respondent vice president today the prosecution respectfully [1:07:50] manifest that it will no longer pursue three of them it will stand on one and that is article two [1:08:09] on unexplained wealth let me explain in three parts first our decision to focus on what is necessary [1:08:27] during pre-trial the prosecution named numerous witnesses but did not present all of them on the article [1:08:40] on threats we named 10 witnesses and presented only three on the article on confidential funds [1:08:51] we named 27 and presented only 11 on the article on unexplained wealth we named 15 and presented 11 not [1:09:09] counting the individual bank and insurance witnesses on the article on bribery we will present none of the [1:09:23] five witnesses we had named in all some 32 witnesses will no longer be called to the witness stand this reflects the [1:09:39] prosecution's considered decision to focus its case only on the witnesses absolutely necessary for each article [1:09:54] second the proceedings that will no longer be the prosecution has not yet made its formal offer of documentary evidence [1:10:10] had we proceeded on all four articles the impeachment court would have had to consider the evidence offered for each [1:10:22] together with the corresponding objections and arguments by focusing on one article the [1:10:32] matters requiring the impeachment court's consideration are correspondingly narrowed [1:10:39] with practical benefits for the senate the respondent and even the public third why one article is [1:10:53] enough the prosecution believes it has presented sufficient evidence for article two to stand on its own [1:11:06] all in all in po tayo dito we believe that evidence is substantial and compelling [1:11:15] and warrants the respondents removal from office for culpable violation of the constitution and betrayal of public [1:11:24] trust article two the article on unexplained wealth covers three matters one unexplained wealth two violations of the salen [1:11:43] and three prohibited business interest [1:11:48] we believe we have provided sufficient evidence on all these allegations [1:11:56] in the prosecution's assessment concentrating on this article [1:12:02] is the most judicious course [1:12:05] consistent with the evidence and our duty to the nation [1:12:09] therefore honorable senator judges beloved countrymen the prosecution formally manifest [1:12:21] its withdrawal of and intention to no longer pursue article one on confidential funds article three [1:12:35] on bribery and article four on threats we respectfully submit this manifestation to the honorable impeachment [1:12:46] court for its consideration and appropriate action we recall the impeachment trial [1:12:54] of the chief justice renato corona in which the prosecution likewise withdrew [1:13:02] certain articles and proceeded only on the remaining ones that president recognized the prosecution's privilege to determine [1:13:14] which articles which articles to pursue and which to drop this manifestation is made in that same spirit [1:13:25] to exercise the prosecution's judgment on which charges to pursue as well as [1:13:34] to safeguard the interest of the nation against betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the constitution [1:13:43] thank you mr presiding officer thank you honorable senator judges the chair notes the manifestation of the lead [1:13:52] prosecutor the honorable louis straw comment from um attorney sheila the lead prosecute lead um [1:13:59] counsel for the respondent rather thank you your honor [1:14:03] we thank the lead prosecutor for the calendar today in that um it now has given formal notice that the prosecution [1:14:12] after 38 days and um expenditure of government resources [1:14:20] presenting all these witnesses [1:14:24] and uh so-called evidence [1:14:26] and spending all our time coming to court to court is now formally withdrawing [1:14:34] um two of those articles for which they had presented evidence and we respect the decision [1:14:39] of the prosecution however whether this will affect how the defense [1:14:44] plan to proceed with its presentation of evidence is um something that we must make clear it will not [1:14:55] because the prosecution cannot make decisions for the respondent and the defense in other words the [1:15:04] prosecution cannot be allowed to have the benefit of its accusations without bearing the burden of having [1:15:13] those accusations tested and the court has already heard the prosecution's alleged evidence and the [1:15:22] interpretations it laid on them and the public has been already exposed to its allegations repeatedly [1:15:31] through long interjections interpellations direct examinations and the many conclusions and opinions [1:15:39] that several of their witnesses have given before this honorable court and therefore [1:15:45] the accusations have already entered the consciousness of those who must ultimately [1:15:54] render judgment in other words the prosecution would thus retain the benefit of having its evidence heard [1:16:02] while the respondent would be or [1:16:04] um would be at risk of being denied the benefit of having that evidence contradicted and we feel and we [1:16:14] believe that this is not um fairness and it is not in keeping with the guarantees of due process because [1:16:23] the right to be heard is not merely satisfied by allowing the respondent some room to present evidence on her behalf [1:16:33] it necessarily includes a meaningful opportunity to answer material accusations already publicly advanced [1:16:43] against her especially in this case where those allegations have been placed before the very tribunal that [1:16:52] will decide this case and all for the entire country and member of this nation [1:16:58] um for their hearing pleasure and so we believe that um even as we respect the prosecution's decision [1:17:12] to withdraw uh the three articles or the two articles um today in addition to article three or the bribery [1:17:19] article the prosecution nonetheless cannot unilaterally determine how the defense will proceed or [1:17:27] which accusations the judges may hear and which accusations the respondent may be permitted to answer [1:17:37] it cannot make decisions for us and for the respondent because to allow this would be to confer upon the [1:17:45] prosecution the extraordinary and impermissible power to control not only the presentation of its own case [1:17:56] but also the scope and substance of the defense case now if the withdrawal is intended to shorten [1:18:05] the proceedings of this case or of the responded or or of the presentation of the respondents evidence [1:18:13] so that the court may immediately proceed to judgment then we believe that the resulting process would bear the [1:18:20] uh unmistakable and mistake unmistakable characteristics of a mistrial a proceeding in which the fundamental balance [1:18:29] between accusation and defense has been so seriously compromised because again on record we have spent government resources [1:18:40] time time energy of this court and of all the all the participants in this trial presenting so-called evidence [1:18:52] and hearing testimonial evidence from um the witnesses that the prosecution had chosen to present before this honorable court [1:19:01] and yet the defense would now appear to be forced um to limit its presentation [1:19:11] or um its rebuttal to those evidence to whatever it is that the prosecution had decided [1:19:18] to retain in the articles of impeachment this we will never allow and while we recognize that [1:19:27] indeed the prosecution has that prerogative to withdraw um articles um in the articles of impeachment that they had [1:19:37] filed uh in fact we also recognize that the prosecution may in fact withdraw all articles of uh impeachment [1:19:48] but um of course they will not do that but that prerogative to withdraw an accusation is not the power [1:19:55] to suppress its rebuttal on the part of the respondent the authority to streamline or to achieve speed in a trial [1:20:08] is not the authority to diminish due process or to altogether disregard fundamental rules of fairness [1:20:20] and the desire to reach a verdict expeditiously can never justify reaching it unfairly [1:20:29] and just to set the records three the lead prosecutor also mentioned the corona um impeachment trials of [1:20:37] president for its decision to withdraw um articles one and article four of um the articles of impeachment [1:20:48] but just so it is clear before this honorable court as i'm sure this court can confirm and verify from the senate records [1:20:55] and so that um and so that um marinig din ng ating mga kababayan kung ano ba talagang nangyari [1:21:02] sa corona trial nung binidraw ng prosecution ng kanilang articles the withdrawal of the five articles out of the eight articles [1:21:10] in the corona impeachment happened before the presentation of evidence not after as in this case [1:21:18] the honor thank you um the court confirms um as an initial reaction that indeed [1:21:28] it is not solely the prosecutor's call or the prosecution's call to withdraw an article of [1:21:35] impeachment but neither is it the respondent's call to deny the same once articles of impeachment are [1:21:42] filed before the court or any court for that any complaint filed before any court for that matter [1:21:48] it is already subject to and under the jurisdiction and disposition of the court not by the party so [1:21:56] we take this manifestation as a motion that will be adopted um that will be acted upon by the court [1:22:03] taking into account the um manifestation which the court will take as an objection of the part of the um [1:22:10] respondent and hence um yes attorney sheila um just do i take it as an objection am i correct [1:22:17] uh no your honor or a manifestation against it um it's just a manifestation your honor um just to set [1:22:24] the record straight that um however the defense or the respondent would want to proceed with its [1:22:32] presentation is of um our own um decision and that um of course um if that's the call of the prosecution to [1:22:42] withdraw certain articles from the articles of impeachment that is their lookout and that is [1:22:48] their prerogative now whatever will be the consequence of that decision will be or would be [1:22:54] for them to bear alone and not for the respondent so it's not an objection to the withdrawal of um [1:23:02] those articles i'm just making a manifestation on behalf of the defense and the respondent that we will [1:23:07] proceed as we dim fit even if it's not an objection it's still subject to the court's decision and [1:23:14] discretion as to how to express our concern for the public who has expressed their impatience [1:23:24] considering that the allegations contained in the articles of impeachment are the same allegations [1:23:33] contained in the first impeachment back in 2024 during the 19th congress your honor our beloved countryman [1:23:44] has all the right to know witness and be informed of the conclusion of all these impeachment processes [1:23:54] which started as early as 2024 second your honor we express our concern for the honorable impeachment [1:24:03] court considering the equally important legislative functions that they need to face as well that [1:24:13] includes the regular bills pending before the senate and most importantly the much anticipated budget [1:24:22] hearing for general appropriations act of 2027 your honor ultimately your honor during the presentation [1:24:32] of evidence in chief by the prosecution the defense was likewise given their opportunity to participate [1:24:41] by way of their lengthy extensive engaging cross-examination where they were able to present their pieces of [1:24:53] documents as well to the public and if the desire of the defense is to be able to share all the pieces of [1:25:05] evidence that they have there are a lot of platforms which they may consider your honor if the intention [1:25:12] only is to share this publicly ultimately your honor the prosecution wishes to put on record that this decision [1:25:23] that this decision to withdraw drop the three of four articles retaining only article two unexplained wealth [1:25:33] is being done after careful consideration of all the interest of the parties involved [1:25:41] thank you your honor um attorney sila is recognized yes your honor just uh response to the counter [1:25:50] manifestation of the lead prosecutor um in the first place when the lead prosecutor mentioned that um if the respondent wants to be heard there are other [1:26:01] platforms where we can show and present our evidence i'm not sure if i heard that right um [1:26:12] um and to be frank it sounds um it is ridiculous to even suggest to the respondent that hey after 38 days [1:26:24] present namin ang lahat ng mga tao na sa tingin namin ay kayang magbigay ng damage sa iyong reputasyon at [1:26:35] kayang mag-identify ng mga dokumento na gusto namin marinig ng taong bayan pero ang gagawin namin sa [1:26:44] bandang huli ay we withdraw namin lahat ito at sasabihin na lamang namin na ito ay para sa taong bayan [1:26:52] para may kaunti namang kabilisan ang trial na ito but nonetheless may iba ka namang platform [1:27:00] respondent that is the messaging that um the prosecution seems um to want to impart before the public and [1:27:14] before this honorable court it is unbelievable and to be honest it is unacceptable platform for the [1:27:23] respondent does the prosecution really want the respondent na puta lang ang respondent sa facebook [1:27:33] and where else matapos nilang sirain ang vicepresidente sa harap ng publiko at ngayon ang [1:27:50] sasabihin ay tutulungan ng taong bayan para mamadali ang proseso sa tingin ko hindi natin [1:28:00] kailangan ng higit pang patunay na something really really wrong is going on here [1:28:10] now binanggit rin ng lead prosecutor yung 2025 impeachment complaint that the prosecution allegedly [1:28:19] wants to help the public because you know they're interested because the impeachment complaints against [1:28:25] the vice president have been going on since 2025 in fact i will probably need to correct that because [1:28:31] the impeachment campaign against the vice president did not only begin in 2025 when the supreme court [1:28:37] junked and nullified void ab initio the impeachment complaints um filed or the articles of impeachment [1:28:46] that the 19th house of representative filed baka nakakalimutan natin na itong dahilan kung bakit may [1:28:54] decision ngayon na duterte versus hor kaya hindi ko rin alam kung saan nang gagaling yung sugestyon na iyan [1:29:01] but uh let us be clear um whatever is the decision of the prosecution [1:29:10] on how to manage its case or how to secure its case and whether it thinks that um [1:29:17] its case can survive on one article alone at uh hindi na nila kailangan pa ng evidensya or to offer [1:29:25] evidence on articles 1 the confidential funds and article 4 on grave threats uh at yung article 3 on [1:29:34] bribery and corrupt corruption that's their call that's their lookout and kagaya ng isang batayang [1:29:45] prinsipyo sa lahat ng hukuman um the prosecution's case must stand or fall on its own so kung [1:29:58] pahihinain ng pag-withdraw ng tatlong articles ang kaso na ito ng prosecution that's theirs to [1:30:05] birth to to bear that's their burden that's not the defense burden and the defense will proceed as it [1:30:15] victims fit lalo na sa pagkakataong ito nag gumugol ang taong bayan ng tatlong putulong araw [1:30:26] marahil marami sa kanilang hindi pa pumapasok sa kanilang sa kanilang sa kanilang [1:30:31] trabaho para masubaybayan ang paglilitis na ito at hindi lang yun gumugol tayo ng government [1:30:40] resources para sa trial na ito in fact um i would even go as far as say that um the withdrawal should [1:30:49] already be um one of the reasons why the articles of impeachment entire articles of impeachment should be [1:30:56] dismissed isang pruweba kahapon narinig natin tinanong pa iyong daledge um forensic um financial [1:31:12] expert at uh pinilit na so saan mo ba may attribute to at ano binanggit niya confidential funds and now [1:31:24] we hear today the prosecution say that they're withdrawing the articles and allegations [1:31:31] doon sa confidential funds so yes it goes into the very right of the respondent to do process [1:31:38] at kung ano man ang gagawin ng hukuman ito sa paglilitis na ito hindi lang respondent ang [1:31:45] apektado dito dahil ano man ang mangyari sa hukuman na ito ito ang mensahe na ibinibigay [1:31:51] natin sa taong bayan ito ang ehemplo at modelo na sinasabi natin sa mamamayang pilipino na pwede [1:31:58] ito pwede itong gawin sa vicepresidente ninyo kaya pwede rin itong gawin sa kahit kanino sa [1:32:06] inyo kapag kayo ang naharap sa isang pagsasakdal hindi ko namin papayagan yan um anything else before [1:32:17] the court makes a um ruling on the um matter your honor please the statement of the [1:32:25] prosecution that the defense may consider other platforms is actually taken from the regular [1:32:32] practice of the respondent herself that instead of appearing in person before the impeachment court [1:32:41] she is stating a lot of things which have direct relation to the trial during press con and it is [1:32:49] from this light your honor that i suggested to the defense there are other platforms which they may [1:32:58] consider if the desire is only to publicly share the evidence in support of the articles which are being [1:33:07] trapped by the prosecution likewise your honor we take exception to the statement of the defense [1:33:14] that by withdrawing the case of the prosecution is being weakened we absolutely uh oppose that [1:33:24] statement your honor it has been repeatedly said that the prosecution has four equally strong articles [1:33:33] of impeachment and it is only because of the consideration of what we believe is the best interest [1:33:40] for all that we are retaining only one article nonetheless your honor without sounding repetitive we are [1:33:48] invoking the exclusive prerogative of the prosecution to decide on matters of evidence to be presented [1:33:56] and ultimately submitting to the impeachment court on its exclusive power to try and decide impeachment [1:34:03] cases thank you you know um yes um senator judge allen yeah before the chair makes um yeah just i just want [1:34:12] mr with the permission of attorney just to clarify madam with your permission mr president and mr [1:34:20] president officer when you say it's the best interest of all can you clarify that are you talking about [1:34:25] time that is one your honor including the resources of the government and even the attention of the [1:34:33] the honorable senator judges considering the equally important legislative matters which are pending before [1:34:40] the senate not to mention your honor the upcoming budget hearing for 2027 as i say natin yon first of [1:34:47] all time there's no limit in the constitution we can finish this in january we can finish this in february [1:34:55] we can take a break tomorrow and focus on the budget it is our choice [1:34:59] we can finish this in february we can finish this in february we can finish this in february we're in an [1:35:14] economic crisis not only because of our own doing but the whole world i mean all of us here all of us here [1:35:20] legislators share all this concern there's a lot of people saying that this impeachment is for [1:35:25] for the politicians we know that's not true we know it's an accountability mechanism but we do know [1:35:32] that the budget next to divine intervention and prayer is the most important but i heard today we might [1:35:37] even can change our schedule na naman para mauna yung impeachment so first of all time it's in the best [1:35:45] interest of everyone that there's fairness and we take our time there's no time limit who is saying that we [1:35:52] have to finish this by by november i want it finished but between finishing it tapos may unfairness [1:36:02] and finishing it na unahinto kaso sa budget mr presiding officer and mr senate president you know [1:36:09] i'd like to put on record i'm very uncomfortable with with that i think it will be a disservice to the [1:36:14] filipino people number two government resources it was the choice of the prosecution you could have [1:36:20] started with the ill-gotten wealth and stopped there but you chose to spend 38 days so kung [1:36:28] basa suntukan sinuntok nyo na yung defense then sasabihin nyo to save time wag na kayong gumanti and then [1:36:36] sasabihin yung platform ang gagamitin so this is my second question can the court issue supinas for [1:36:44] their witnesses to attend their facebook live or press cons with all due respect your honor that was [1:36:51] in response to the statement of the defense that the evidence of the prosecution have been seen by [1:36:56] the public yes ma'am i understand but that's the problem you put all of your witness here in court [1:37:05] in a formal process before the filipino people and this is an impeachable officer there are only a few [1:37:13] impeachable officers in our constitution and this is not purely a judicial process as we all know it's [1:37:19] a political process also meaning it's not enough dito na ma convict or ma quit yung reputation [1:37:26] ng tao yung yung certainty ng tao na siya guilty o hindi so for example so that's my other question [1:37:34] assuming we don't give the defense the opportunity to present dun sa tatlong articles or dun sa dalawa [1:37:40] nagpresent na is the prosecution willing that we acquit her on those two uh articles will we will we [1:37:50] categorize the dismissal as an acquittal we believe your honor that by the withdrawal of the three [1:37:57] articles by the prosecution it means that this will no longer be part of the impeachment trial [1:38:03] and therefore they are no longer proper subject matter of the verdict to be rendered by the honorable [1:38:08] impeachment so so so we see the problem that was created no problem with the corona president and [1:38:14] with the article that you have not uh that you will not pursue because you did not present evidence [1:38:20] in this court every day using government resources getting people's attention but for the two articles [1:38:27] that you have already done your best and a lot of people agree with you a lot of people disagree with [1:38:34] you but to say sandali lang winidraw namin oh matuwa na kayong defense wala na yan is that the kind of [1:38:45] democracy the kind of legal system the kind of justice that we want to give the the filipino [1:38:51] people can you imagine the president so kung galit ako sa koa and i i have barkada one third of congress [1:39:00] and i tell them don't worry i present lang natin yung evidence and then at the last minute i withdraw [1:39:05] na lang huwag na lang tayo mag formal offer and then uh sa media na lang or whatever sinira na natin [1:39:13] yung isang tao we already use government so i i don't know many of the senator judges here i'm not at [1:39:20] liberty to mention them but tama din naman sila if you you withdraw everything then wala rin naman choice ang [1:39:26] defense if they withdraw all four then we have to stop this impeachment wala tayong pag-uusapan [1:39:33] but but the reality is when you withdraw one or more but leave one all the accusations still stand [1:39:43] there especially the evidence that you've already already filed so i i do not know exactly how the [1:39:50] presiding officer is going to rule but may i put on record the following things so number one yeah we have [1:39:55] to finish this impeachment process with the basic element of fairness you know of of really justice [1:40:03] kahit anong mangyari dito acquit or uh uh convict may matutuwa may magagalit but history will judge us [1:40:13] whether or not yung elementary uh fairness and due process number two priorities are priorities [1:40:20] priority dapat yung budget kung masasabay natin bakit hindi in the last few months pinagsabay natin [1:40:28] session budget impeachment but if we're gonna stop just for the sake na matapos tayong [1:40:34] november we're gonna suffer the budget is not just passing it no then third uh mr president uh honorable [1:40:44] members of the prosecution whatever the judgment it has to be acceptable by the filipino people [1:40:49] and just because there's no food just because there's no uh people power and just because you [1:40:56] know the rating some of us are doing well some of you are doing well uh just because last month these [1:41:03] guys are doing well this that doesn't mean na tama yung tinatanim natin sa mga kabataan ngayon [1:41:12] just like you even during the duterte administration the aquino administration we have to do what has to be [1:41:19] done and we are in the moment and there are certain things that we all believe has to be done but then [1:41:25] 10 years later we look back so like the corona impeachment it is what it is but we look back and [1:41:31] also learn from that so i don't want to look back 10 years from now and say na just so that matapos [1:41:36] natin ito ng november eto yung mga ginawa namin kasi ang dami ng issues eh kasama yung threshold [1:41:43] and dami na dadagdagan pa ba natin ito by that i am sorry mr senate president for taking this time but [1:41:51] it was a surprise to us kasi we more or less knew that you're gonna withdraw yung sa bribery ma'am [1:41:56] but uh to withdraw the the other two you know it's something that we have to all take in [1:42:01] and at this point hindi naman nag nag uh object on defense but at this point to say to the defense [1:42:07] you can or cannot do this medyo ma i just have to put on right mabigat po talaga thank you ma'am [1:42:14] thank you sir um senator jajalan um um with your permission senator jajalan before i recognize um [1:42:22] attorney sheila senator jajalan you mentioned something earlier about dropping three keeping one [1:42:28] um that's why it's unfair because the respondent cannot present evidence anymore [1:42:34] i agree with the presiding officer that uh the bribery case falls under the corona president [1:42:41] yes but the two does not dumaan man sa house yan nasa media you didn't present the witnesses and the [1:42:48] documentary evidence here so when you withdraw it i i don't think we have any obligation to ask the [1:42:54] defense or to prohibit them from presenting defense right but for the two other articles that we've spent [1:43:00] the last 38 days presenting the evidence here so it's not only the legal consequences meaning acquitted or [1:43:09] or convicted but also the reputation of the vice president and her her right to a fair hearing a [1:43:17] fair trial by being able to present their own evidence so in theory in theory because this has [1:43:23] happened in the united states in several occasions given our research on the matter what if the prosecution [1:43:30] decides not this one decides not this one clearly they're not um decides to drop all and completely [1:43:38] after presenting evidence completely withdraw all yeah that's where i agree with you and i just didn't [1:43:44] name you a while that's why i when you drop all no problem because basically she's acquitted and [1:43:52] basically both sides will go to we will go to the public opinion but the prosecution will lose [1:43:58] now this is after they presented yes yes but if you drop all that means suddenly you're not interested [1:44:08] in prosecuting anymore that means there's something happened that made you believe that now that person [1:44:16] shouldn't be impeached but when you leave even one so whether that's 10 you withdrew nine that's seven you [1:44:22] you withdrew six you leave one then you're still telling the public she's still not uh she should [1:44:29] not spend a day more in office and should be impeached so i agree with you mr presiding officer and with [1:44:34] our colleagues here na ano pang iprepresent ng defense kung hindi naman present yung formal so hindi [1:44:41] naman siya mako convict yes in terms of the legal consequences of having a verdict of conviction but [1:44:48] that's not our fault that's the fault of the prosecution ayaw nila i offer it kung in offer nila [1:44:53] ngayon tapos na tayo today so but it cannot also be the fault of the prosecution because you presented [1:45:00] everything then stopped short and then withdrew it's unfair to the prosecution and to the impeachable [1:45:05] officer now to say na bahala na si batman bahala na kayo sa press con bahala na kayo sa social media mag defense [1:45:13] that's why i asked the question will we will we issue a subpoena for example if they want a hostile witness [1:45:19] uh na taga sec halimbawa or taga uh whatever amla uh mag appear sa facebook will we issue a [1:45:28] supina hindi pupunta ba yung mga um taga amla uh amlc kung kung sila magprepress con hindi mr [1:45:35] president so that's the problem i agree with you kung lahat tinuloy o lahat winidraw wala tayong [1:45:42] problema pero pagka and kung yung lahat ng winidraw hindi ka pa nag present ng evidence wala [1:45:48] din tayong problema pero ang problema natin nag present ka na eh until hanggang dulo eh then [1:45:53] you're gonna insist that malakas pa rin yung case nyo on all four cases kasi if they're not presenting [1:45:59] now and they say na no no we admit she'll be acquitted in the two then then maybe i would ask the the [1:46:06] defense or would it be acceptable if they admit na acquitted sya dun sa dalawa why present pa kung [1:46:12] akutin pero kung sasabihin hindi lang namin iprepresent pero malakas ang case namin [1:46:18] pero kayo hindi kayo pwede mag present ng evidence hindi po talaga mag square mr presiding officer [1:46:25] noted attorney sheila and then the court will um make some statements um before the ruling yes your honor [1:46:34] thank you uh just very quick uh responses to what the lead prosecutor said she mentioned that um [1:46:43] the comment on the platforms or giving the respondent um the ability to present before any [1:46:49] platform she chooses um whatever it is that she wants ventilated before the public uh was taken out [1:46:56] of context or this was in response because she believes that the respondent had um fully done [1:47:03] that um previously we will no longer dignify that but i think we can all agree everyone in this room [1:47:09] can all agree that that is a very strange thing to hear from a public officer in a formal trial [1:47:17] suggesting to the very person that they had indicted and they had held to court to we will just stop we [1:47:26] will just withdraw after presenting everything that um we think we have against you and then just go to [1:47:33] the platform i think that's very strange now if we go to section one article 11 and again duterte [1:47:39] versus h or the accountability mechanism does not only um apply to the respondent the court has also [1:47:48] already said and we don't even need to look far we just need to read section one article 11 the [1:47:56] accountability or the requirement of being accountable is demanded of every public officer including [1:48:07] the members of this honorable court and the public officers um who are also members of the prosecution [1:48:14] panel now second before any suggestion uh or um any suggestion that um this is because the impeachment [1:48:27] proceeding is sui generis we'd like to just say that being sui simply means that this proceeding or an [1:48:35] impeachment proceeding is unique it is a class of its own but it is not the free pass to entirely [1:48:46] disregard the constitution the law and the rules in fact um we have a case gas corporation versus in [1:48:53] shong this is a 1979 case and i don't think anyone here will um disagree uh in that the court said that [1:49:03] the court already emphasized that while the standards of due process allows um a certain latitude the [1:49:11] element of fairness should not be ignored here if uh by the withdrawal of um these three articles or two [1:49:22] two additional articles from the prosecution is seen to have uh some effect on how the defense will [1:49:29] decide or how the respondent will decide to proceed with its presentation of um or evidence in chief [1:49:37] then the prosecution is mistaken again and for the record we will proceed as we team fit now any [1:49:43] objections that the prosecution will have on relevance materiality competence they should make that at the [1:49:49] appropriate time in accordance with um section 35 of rule 132 your honor and uh finally the just a quick [1:50:00] reply to uh what the lead prosecutor said about time that they don't want to waste anymore the time of [1:50:07] the court and the court and the public but they already did [1:50:17] you