Day 42: VP Sara Duterte Impeachment Trial (Part 3) NAG-INIT sa hindi pagsagot ang Defense Witness

[0:00] One of those rights is not to be badgered by questions, only this impeachment court will resolve in the final decision it will make. [0:07] Because what Attorney Caponan is asking the witness is, isn't this a constitutional violation? [0:13] I am badgering, Your Honor. I have the right to badger. [0:16] We have the right to badger a witness who does not want to answer a question that should be answered. [0:24] Seems to me, 15 years ka, abogado, mukhang hindi ka pa ready. Or, nagmamangmangan lang po kayo. [0:33] Okay. In the Articles of Incorporation of Davao Bounty Times Foods Corporation, in particular, paragraph 8, it says, [0:48] At least 25% of the authorized capital has been subscribed, and at least 25 of the total subscriptions has been paid up as follows. [1:00] And there is a listing here, among others. [1:03] In particular, call your attention when you say return of investment. [1:20] Sarah C. Duterte, per this Articles of Incorporation, subscribed to 1,875 shares in the total amount of 187,500, and she only paid 46,875 pesos. [1:47] So, in sum, her investment in this company that you said was giving back return on investment of a total amount of 2.1. [2:01] Her investment is only 46,875, based on these Articles of Incorporation. [2:10] My question to you is, are you referring to any other Articles of Incorporation? [2:17] Because this is what the article says. [2:20] Her only investment paid up is 46,000. [2:23] Do you have any other document attesting to what Sarah V. Duterte invested then in this company? [2:33] No. [2:33] No other document. [2:35] Okay. [2:36] So, you have no basis for saying that this total of 2.1 million, which you characterize as return on investment. [2:51] There is no basis for your saying that. [2:53] Objection, Your Honor. [2:54] Misleading and argumentative. [2:56] Argumentative. [2:57] Move on, counsel. [2:58] We get the point. [2:59] Okay. [3:01] So, how do you, what then, if 2.1 million, if you match it with what she paid to the company, there is a mismatch. [3:11] What then is the 2.1 million for? [3:16] That was returned to the Vice President. [3:21] Asked and answered, Your Honor. [3:22] The witness has already repeatedly testified that this is return of capital, Your Honor. [3:27] Your Honor, please, precisely, this is cross. [3:30] The capital she put in is only 46,875. [3:36] And yet, the return is 2.1 million. [3:41] For a company, Your Honor, that has been dissolved and did not continue the franchise. [3:49] And which was absorbed by Gencore, Your Honor. [3:53] How can that be explained? [3:55] The witness answered that it is for return of capital, the 2.1 million. [4:03] When asked what capital, she replied, Because of Davao bounty. [4:09] Yes. [4:09] As correctly pointed out by counsel, her capital contribution is only that. [4:14] And counsel asked the witness, What else, if any, capital should be returned, given that her contribution is only 48,000? [4:23] And she said, She's not aware of any other. [4:27] That was already answered, counsel. [4:29] Hindi niya na alam kung saan pa at kung bakit nagbibigay ng return of capital outside of Davao bounty. [4:38] Correct, Attorney Suzette? [4:39] Yes, Your Honor. [4:41] Kung may ibang rason man, hindi niya na alam. [4:44] Ang alam niya lang, Davao bounty na pinapakita nga dito, eh dapat matagal ng bayad. [4:51] Yes, Attorney Suzette? [4:53] This was in 2007, Your Honor. [4:55] And I have no other document aside from these articles of income. [5:01] At hindi niyo rin kayang paliwanan kung bakit umabot na ng 2.1, samantalang yung contribution niya sa Davao bounty ay mababa lamang. [5:09] Yes, Your Honor. [5:10] Okay. [5:11] That's her answer, Attorney Lorna. [5:13] Okay. [5:13] So, when you refer to loose investment, you are referring to, if my understanding is correct, you are referring to the money that she put in Davao. [5:26] Is that it? [5:27] Davao bounty? [5:28] Davao bounty. [5:29] Yes, ma'am. [5:30] In Davao bounty. [5:31] That is the loose investment. [5:34] But that loose investment also is the explanation being used for why the name of the vice president is not in the GIS. [5:52] Is that what you're saying? [5:54] Because she is not a shareholder. [5:56] She just made a loose investment. [5:58] Misleading, Your Honor. [5:59] Witness is intelligent enough to answer. [6:05] Attorney Suzette, you may answer the way you understand the question that have been posed to you. [6:09] She is not in the GIS of GenCorp because she is not a stockholder. [6:18] Okay. [6:18] She is not a stockholder per the GIS, but she is a stockholder per her declaration or admission in her statement of assets and liabilities. [6:42] Madam Witness. [6:44] What is the question, Your Honor? [6:45] The question is, how will you, as an expert, no, not as an expert, having dealt with companies and also being an accountant yourself, how would you reconcile this discrepancy? [7:06] If any, if you can. [7:08] Your Honor, apologies. [7:09] And with all your respect to the counsel for the prosecution, I think this is connected already and had already been answered by the witness in a previous answer. [7:17] She already explained that she cannot answer for the Vice President, Your Honor. [7:22] In respect to clarifying that. [7:26] So to ask the witness how you can reconcile that inconsistency, the witness already answered. [7:31] She cannot answer for the Vice President. [7:34] To abbreviate, counsels, to abbreviate the proceedings and I guess this is in the mind of some of the senator judges as well. [7:43] Attorney Suzette, sabi nyo return of capital at sabi nyo anong capital yon, Davao Bounty. [7:50] Sa Davao Bounty, ang binayaran lamang ng Vice President ayon sa record ay 48,000. [7:57] Yung binibigay ng Gencorp Times Square Branch Jollibee sa kanya mula 2022, 45x na, 45x na, 45x na, nung kanyang investment sa Davao Bounty. [8:15] Hindi na po ito, and please take note of the preposition I will use. [8:22] Hindi na po ito return of investment. [8:26] Return on investment na po ito. [8:30] Return of investment, hindi po ba? [8:32] Ginamit nyo kasi ganina, return of investment eh. [8:35] Binalik yung ininvest. [8:39] Binalik yung kapital lang. [8:41] Return on investment, may kita na yung kapital. [8:45] Kasi nga, yung binibinayaran lang ng Vice President ayon sa dokumento ay 48,000 sa Davao Bounty. [8:53] Ngayon, posibleng may ibang dahilan na hindi nyo alam. [8:58] At ang sagot nyo, hindi nyo haalam kung ano pa yung iba. [9:01] To your knowledge, ito lang po yun. [9:03] So, base sa sagot nyo, hindi lang po ito return of investment, return on investment na po ito, [9:11] maliba na lang kung may alam pa kayo at masasabing iba pang investment ng Vice President na binabalik. [9:17] Kung wala na po, then we will leave it at that. [9:20] Wala na po, Atty. [9:21] Wala na po. [9:23] Wala kayong alam. [9:25] Pero posibleng meron, hindi nyo lang alam. [9:28] Would that be a fair statement? [9:29] Hindi ko nga po alam kung meron because I could not verify it from other records. [9:36] That's the answer of the Witness Council. [9:39] Move on, Attorney Lorna. [9:40] Whether it be, in line with the questioning of the presiding officer, [9:46] whether it be a return on investment or a return of investment, [9:58] Madam Counsel, you are following. [10:01] It is still income, correct? [10:05] Yes. [10:06] Whether binalik yung ininvest mo, binalik yan. [10:10] Income yan. [10:11] With the indulgence of Attorney Lorna, what is the pleasure of Senator Judge Rafi? [10:18] Kanina pa ako nagtataka, Mr. Presiding Officer. [10:22] Alam naman niya kung bakit siya kinuhang witness today [10:25] para sa unexplained wealth ni BP Sara [10:29] for her to explain the unexplainable. [10:31] And yet, marami siya mga hindi alam. [10:36] Tulad na lang nung return on investment or return of investment, [10:39] she could have at least asked and made some research. [10:44] Tinanong siya sa sana yung GenCore. [10:47] Ano ba talaga ito? [10:48] Return of investment or return on investment? [10:50] And she cannot answer that simple question from the prosecution. [10:55] Sana, alam mo pupunta ka rito, Madam Witness. [10:58] Kumawa ka ng mga research. [11:00] Tulad yan, return of investment ba or return on investment. [11:04] Tapos ngayon, wala man lang maipakitang dokumento tulad ng kontrata [11:09] o cancel check na para ipatunay na yun talaga ay return of investment. [11:15] Kalimbawa na lang. [11:16] Di ba alam mo yung may cancel check kung tawagin? [11:18] Kasi kanina nabanggit mo cheque ang ibinayad para dun sa return of investment. [11:26] Yes, Your Honor. [11:27] So may cancel check yun. [11:28] Nakita mo ba yung cancel check? [11:30] No, I did not. [11:31] No, you should have asked a copy of that cancel check [11:33] kasi alam mo, magtitistig ko ngayon dito. [11:36] You should have asked for the contract. [11:38] Ito yung return of investment, sige nasa niyong kontrata. [11:42] Kung walang kontrata, nasa niyong cancel check. [11:44] Kasi sa cancel check, sa cheque, nilalagay doon kung para saan niyong binabayad sa kanya. [11:48] Tama? [11:49] So you should have at least asked from GEMCOR a copy of that cancel check [11:54] para pagpunta mo dito, ready-ready ka na. [11:56] It seems to me, 15 years ka abogado, mukhang hindi ka pa ready. [12:00] Or, nagmamangmangan lang po kayo. [12:03] Maraming salamat po. [12:04] The remarks of the gentleman are noted. [12:07] Attorney Capunan, your witness. [12:08] Madam Witness, whether it is a return, [12:15] of investment, which now is becoming clear, [12:20] that it is not. [12:21] Because, because yung 2 million na yan, [12:29] hindi ma-reconcile sa 40-something thousand lang na ininvest niya. [12:33] Correct? [12:34] It is a return of investment, [12:38] or a return on investment, [12:40] which means she invested as either creditor, [12:46] nagpahiram, [12:48] or shareholder siya, [12:52] or ito ay bayad sa utang sa kanya kung nagpa-utang siya, [12:59] or declared as dividend. [13:00] Whether, regardless of the characterization, [13:04] it is income. [13:06] Correct? [13:07] Asked and answered, your honor. [13:09] I haven't heard your answer yet. [13:11] Not yet. [13:12] Kindly answer, attorney Suzette. [13:14] I answered yes, your honor. [13:15] So, it is income. [13:17] With the permission of attorney Lornas, [13:19] Senator Judge Bam wishes to make, [13:23] I mean, what is your pleasure, sir? [13:25] Just to clarify lang, [13:26] two quick questions only, [13:28] just to add to this. [13:32] Attorney Suzette, [13:34] iba-iba kasi yung numero dito, no? [13:36] I mean, iba-iba yung pumapasok na monthly. [13:39] Ano yung computation [13:40] para maabot natin [13:42] yung perang pumapasok [13:44] kay Vice President Sarah, [13:46] number one? [13:46] Number two, [13:47] are you saying in 2026, [13:48] wala na siyang natanggap? [13:49] Tumigil in 2025? [13:52] With respect to 2026, [13:54] walang natanggap. [13:55] The data that I requested [13:57] is for 2022 to 2025. [13:59] No, iba yung data [14:00] that you requested. [14:01] Are you confirming [14:02] that she did not receive [14:03] any more money [14:04] from Gencorp this year? [14:06] I cannot confirm [14:07] if there is. [14:09] So, you cannot confirm [14:10] whether the Vice President [14:11] received any money [14:12] from Gencorp [14:13] in 2026? [14:15] You were the... [14:16] No po. [14:16] I am not part [14:17] of the accounting department, sir. [14:19] Okay, sige. [14:20] Second question, [14:21] ano yung formula [14:23] to get these figures? [14:25] Also, the formula. [14:26] I am not, [14:27] I do not have [14:27] any participation [14:28] in the computation, [14:29] so I do not know. [14:31] Pumunta ka dito [14:31] with these numbers, [14:32] di mo alam kung paano [14:33] nakuha yung mga numero. [14:34] I requested for data extraction [14:36] for 2022 to 2025. [14:40] Okay. [14:41] Your witness, [14:42] attorney Lorna. [14:48] Thank you. [14:50] Madam witness. [14:57] Regardless of the amount, [14:58] Madam witness, [14:59] it could be [15:00] 43,000, [15:02] it could be 2 million, [15:03] it could be more, [15:04] it could be less. [15:05] It still is income. [15:08] Correct? [15:10] Correct? [15:12] I already answered yes, [15:13] Your Honor. [15:14] Okay. [15:14] And as income, [15:16] it should be declared. [15:21] Correct? [15:22] Yes. [15:22] Okay. [15:23] And this is income [15:25] which is coming [15:27] from a business. [15:30] Correct? [15:32] Yes. [15:33] Yes. [15:33] And of course, [15:35] as a lawyer, [15:37] you know [15:37] that under the Constitution, [15:40] the Vice President [15:41] cannot receive [15:42] any other income, [15:45] no matter how big [15:46] or small. [15:48] She cannot receive [15:49] any other income [15:51] or have [15:53] any business interest, [15:58] personal, [15:58] pecuniary interest [16:00] in any other corporation. [16:03] It is a clear prohibition [16:05] in the Constitution. [16:06] You agree? [16:07] Your Honor, [16:08] compound, [16:09] misleading, [16:10] calls for a conclusion. [16:14] Attorney Suzette, [16:16] only if you know. [16:19] You may answer [16:19] only if you know. [16:20] If you don't, [16:21] then you may say so as well. [16:23] I prefer not to answer, [16:25] Your Honor. [16:27] You prefer not to answer? [16:29] You are here. [16:30] Iba yung you prefer [16:31] not to answer [16:31] so you don't know, [16:32] Attorney Suzette. [16:33] I don't know, [16:34] Your Honor. [16:41] You've made your point, [16:42] Attorney Lorna. [16:43] Okay. [16:43] I don't even know [16:44] what the question is. [16:47] Did you prefer [16:49] not to answer? [16:50] Why? [16:51] Why do you prefer [16:52] not to answer [16:52] when you're here? [16:54] Precisely [16:54] for the purpose [16:56] of clarifying [16:57] the situation. [17:00] Is the Vice President [17:01] in violation [17:02] of the Constitution [17:04] by not declaring [17:06] income [17:07] which she received [17:08] from sources [17:09] other than her salary? [17:12] Your Honor. [17:12] Why can you not [17:15] answer that? [17:16] Attorney Lorna, [17:17] she changed her response [17:18] to I don't know. [17:20] You can repeat it again, [17:21] Attorney Suzette. [17:22] Your Honor, [17:22] however, [17:23] please allow me to speak. [17:24] Yes. [17:25] Your Honor, [17:26] again, [17:26] our witnesses here [17:27] are entitled to rights. [17:30] One of those rights [17:31] is not to be badgered [17:32] by questions. [17:33] Only this impeachment court [17:34] will resolve [17:35] in the final decision [17:36] it will make. [17:37] Because what [17:38] Attorney Kapunan [17:39] is asking the witnesses [17:40] isn't this [17:41] a constitutional violation? [17:42] But at the start [17:43] of the seating, [17:44] we are all aware [17:45] as lawyers, [17:46] Attorney, [17:46] that only the respective [17:48] senator judges [17:48] can make [17:49] that final determination. [17:51] We ask, [17:52] Your Honor, [17:52] that this is clearly [17:53] already badgering [17:54] the witness [17:55] as Attorney Lorna Kapunan [17:57] with all respect [17:58] knows what she is doing. [18:00] Your Honor, [18:00] may we move on? [18:02] I also know, [18:03] Your Honor, [18:03] what counsel is doing. [18:05] Counsel [18:05] is manifesting [18:07] that I'm badgering. [18:09] I may have a loud voice, [18:10] Your Honor, [18:11] but this is already [18:13] my tame voice. [18:14] It could be louder. [18:16] In fact, [18:16] this is my kind voice [18:18] when I ask the witness, [18:19] Your Honor, [18:20] if she knows. [18:21] Because she should know. [18:23] Fifteen years [18:24] in the practice of law, [18:26] you do not know [18:27] what should not be declared [18:29] and what should be declared [18:30] as a public officer. [18:32] You do not know [18:34] that a public officer [18:35] cannot receive income [18:37] apart from her [18:38] legitimate salary [18:40] from any other business [18:41] or exercise [18:42] of any profession. [18:44] And to answer, [18:45] Your Honor, [18:46] that she prefers [18:47] not to answer, [18:48] I think it's a violation [18:50] of her oath [18:50] as a lawyer. [18:52] And that's why [18:52] I feel agitated, [18:54] Your Honor. [18:55] It's a violation [18:56] of her oath of office [18:58] that she will say, [18:59] I do not want, [19:01] I prefer not to answer. [19:02] As an officer [19:04] of the court, [19:04] especially [19:05] a highest impeachment court, [19:08] to say that, [19:08] Your Honor, [19:09] I think that should be, [19:11] that should not be accepted [19:12] as an answer, [19:13] Your Honor. [19:14] I am badgering, [19:15] Your Honor. [19:16] I have the right [19:16] to badger. [19:17] We have the right [19:18] to badger [19:19] a witness [19:20] who does not [19:22] want to answer [19:23] a question [19:24] that should be answered. [19:26] Forgive me, [19:26] counsel, [19:27] even if she refused [19:29] to answer. [19:31] No counsel [19:31] has the right [19:32] to badger [19:33] a witness still, [19:34] although you can [19:34] be frustrated [19:35] or disappointed. [19:37] However, [19:38] the witness [19:40] already answered [19:41] that she does not know [19:42] after the court [19:44] reminded her [19:45] that she cannot [19:45] refuse to answer [19:48] the question. [19:50] And she already [19:51] changed her answer [19:52] and said, [19:52] She does not know. [19:54] You have made [19:54] your point, counsel. [19:55] You have spread [19:57] into the records [19:58] your theory, [19:59] move on [20:00] to your next point, [20:01] Attorney Lorna. [20:02] Let us now go [20:03] to Metro. [20:13] First of all, [20:19] there seems to be, [20:20] have you studied [20:21] the corporate directors [20:22] of Gencor? [20:24] Yes, Your Honor. [20:26] Okay. [20:27] And you're saying [20:28] that the previous owners [20:30] of the predecessors [20:32] of Gencor, [20:33] I would have shown it [20:34] in a slide, [20:35] but in the interest [20:35] of time, [20:36] the predecessor companies [20:38] of Gencor [20:39] are no longer [20:42] in existence. [20:43] They are dissolved, [20:44] correct? [20:46] On the process [20:46] of dissolution, [20:47] Your Honor. [20:48] But the shareholders [20:49] of those companies [20:51] also, [20:53] based on records, [20:54] and you can verify, [20:56] are interlocking [20:57] the shareholders [20:59] of the dissolved [21:01] or in the process [21:02] of dissolving company [21:04] or in the process [21:06] of dissolution, [21:08] are interlocked [21:09] shareholders [21:10] or directors [21:11] with Gencor. [21:14] Some of them. [21:15] Objection, Your Honor, [21:16] lax basis? [21:17] May we know [21:17] when? [21:17] She already answered, [21:18] counsel. [21:20] She said some. [21:21] There are interlocks. [21:23] Kindly move on, [21:24] Attorney Lorna. [21:24] She already answered. [21:28] And in this interlocks, [21:32] there is a family name [21:35] that appears, [21:37] correct? [21:38] Very, [21:39] as a dominant shareholder, [21:42] the name of JTC [21:46] or JTC Corporation [21:48] or the name of the person, [21:52] Jaime Cruz, [21:54] correct? [21:55] Correct, Your Honor. [21:56] As a corporate counsel, [21:59] as in-house counsel [22:00] of Mr. Jaime Cruz, [22:03] do you know, [22:03] if you know, [22:05] if the Vice President [22:07] knows this Jaime T. Cruz? [22:10] Misleading, Your Honor, [22:11] there is no prior testimony [22:13] that the witness stated [22:15] that she is the counsel [22:17] of Jaime T. Cruz himself. [22:20] She's the counsel [22:20] of Gencor. [22:23] We know there's a separate [22:24] juridical. [22:25] She answered, yeah. [22:27] Although, [22:28] although, [22:28] although, [22:29] indeed, [22:29] nothing has been mentioned [22:31] about it, [22:32] the witness, [22:33] indeed, [22:34] admitted earlier [22:34] that she's the in-house counsel [22:36] of other corporations [22:38] and that the incorporator [22:41] of those other corporations [22:43] is Jaime T. Cruz as well. [22:48] So, [22:49] with your indulgence, [22:50] Attorney Justine, [22:51] I'll allow it. [22:52] Witness may answer. [22:54] Yes, Your Honor. [22:54] But I only ask that [22:55] Attorney Capunan, [22:56] with all due respect, [22:57] lay the basis. [22:58] Yes, [23:00] kindly answer, [23:02] Attorney Suzette. [23:06] Jaime T. Cruz [23:07] is a common shareholder [23:09] in the defunct [23:10] or corporations [23:12] that are in the process [23:13] of dissolution [23:14] which used to own, [23:16] which used to own, [23:17] rather, [23:18] the Jollibee franchises [23:20] bought by Gencorp [23:21] later on. [23:22] Yes, Your Honor. [23:23] And Gencorp's [23:25] principal shareholder [23:26] is also Jaime Cruz. [23:28] Let me verify, [23:29] Your Honor. [23:48] It's JTC Group of Companies, [23:50] Your Honor. [23:51] JTC Group of Companies [23:53] which stands for, [23:55] I guess, [23:56] Jaime T. Cruz, [23:57] correct? [23:58] That's a holding company. [23:59] Yes, Your Honor. [24:00] So, [24:01] it's the holding company [24:02] that's the biggest shareholder [24:04] of Gencorp [24:05] which in turn [24:06] is owned by [24:07] Jaime T. Cruz, [24:08] I suppose, [24:09] as the acronym suggests. [24:11] Your Honor, [24:11] pardon. [24:12] Yes, [24:12] I will have to invoke [24:13] this court's own ruling [24:15] dated November 5, [24:16] 2026, [24:17] where it excluded [24:19] documents [24:20] from the offer [24:21] pertaining to [24:22] JTC Group of Companies [24:25] and Pikimong, [24:26] Pikimong. [24:27] What am I trying to say, [24:28] Your Honor? [24:28] The subject matter [24:30] being discussed now [24:31] has already been excluded [24:32] by this Honorable Court, [24:33] Your Honor. [24:34] We are not asking for [24:36] additional documents [24:37] counsel, [24:37] just simply correlating [24:39] this matter [24:41] to Gencorp. [24:43] This does not [24:43] in any way [24:44] pertain to the [24:45] respondents' [24:45] liability [24:48] under any of the articles [24:50] but just to complete [24:51] the story [24:51] in relation [24:52] to Gencorp. [24:54] We submit [24:54] and we understand [24:55] your own. [24:56] So, [24:56] yung predecessor [24:56] companies, [24:58] Jaime T. Cruz [24:58] ang nakalabas, [24:59] Gencorp now [25:00] is own principally [25:01] biggest shareholder, [25:02] JTC. [25:03] Correct? [25:04] Yes, [25:04] Your Honor. [25:04] Okay. [25:05] Move on, [25:06] your witness counsel. [25:08] Madam Witness, [25:10] this Jaime T. Cruz, [25:11] if you know, [25:15] does the Vice President [25:17] know [25:17] Jaime T. Cruz? [25:22] I cannot speak [25:23] for the Vice President [25:24] but [25:27] they are both [25:29] stockholders [25:30] in one corporation. [25:32] So, [25:33] they are both [25:34] stockholders [25:35] in one corporation. [25:37] And what corporation [25:37] is that? [25:39] The Metro City [25:39] Chow Foods. [25:41] So, [25:41] in Metro City [25:42] Chow King, [25:42] Jaime T. Cruz [25:47] and [25:48] Vice President [25:49] Sara [25:50] are both [25:51] shareholders. [25:53] Correct? [25:53] Yes, [25:54] ma'am. [25:54] Okay. [25:55] And [25:56] in Metro Chow, [25:59] she owns [25:59] 20% [26:00] and Jaime [26:02] Cruz owns [26:03] majority. [26:07] Majority. [26:08] Okay. [26:09] We now go [26:09] to Gencorp. [26:11] In Gencorp, [26:13] Jaime Cruz, [26:14] JT. Cruz [26:16] owns shares [26:17] but [26:18] for some [26:19] reason [26:19] the Vice [26:21] President's [26:22] name [26:23] does not [26:24] appear [26:24] in the [26:25] GIS [26:25] as a [26:26] shareholder [26:26] but it [26:27] appears [26:27] in her [26:28] Salen. [26:31] I will [26:31] propose [26:33] to you [26:34] now [26:34] a [26:36] reason [26:37] and [26:38] that [26:38] reason [26:39] is [26:39] as [26:40] stated [26:40] in the [26:41] forensic [26:41] report [26:42] and I [26:43] refer you [26:44] to page [26:44] 22. [26:45] Please go [26:46] to page [26:46] 22. [26:46] Apologies, [26:47] Your Honor. [26:47] I will [26:47] have to [26:47] object [26:48] because it [26:49] would now [26:49] seem [26:50] that the [26:50] council [26:50] is testifying [26:51] not asking [26:52] a question. [26:56] Barring [26:56] the basis [26:58] laid by [26:59] attorney [26:59] for a [27:00] question, [27:00] the question [27:01] is simply [27:01] asking the [27:02] witness to [27:02] read a [27:03] portion of [27:03] the report. [27:05] Then I [27:05] ask [27:05] respectfully [27:06] that she [27:07] go directly [27:07] to that [27:08] point. [27:09] Council [27:10] is so [27:10] directed. [27:11] which I [27:13] was [27:13] saying [27:13] if the [27:14] attorney [27:15] can [27:16] now [27:16] go [27:16] to [27:16] page [27:19] 22 [27:19] of [27:20] the [27:20] report [27:21] and [27:21] if [27:21] it's [27:21] available [27:22] can [27:22] we [27:22] flash [27:23] page [27:23] 22 [27:24] of [27:25] the [27:25] forensic [27:25] report.