Cross-exam of Defense witness Atty. Balucanag-Punay on impeachment trial day 42

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Attorney Lorna, yes, Cross. [00:00:02] Speaker 2: Without permission of this Honorable Court. [00:00:04] Speaker 1: Yes. Kindly proceed, Counsel. [00:00:12] Speaker 2: Good afternoon, Attorney. Good afternoon, Ma'am. How do you want to be addressed, Attorney, Counselor? Suzette. Attorney Suzette. [00:00:20] Suzette: Yes, Ma'am. [00:00:21] Speaker 1: Before you continue, Attorney Lorna, Attorney Suzette, can you speak closer to the mic or move the mic closer to you, whichever way? You may proceed, Attorney Lorna. [00:00:35] Speaker 2: Attorney Suzette, you were admitted to the Philippine Bar in the year 2011, correct? [00:00:41] Suzette: Yes, Ma'am. [00:00:42] Speaker 2: So today, you're in the practice of the profession for 15 years. [00:00:47] Suzette: Yes, Ma'am. [00:00:48] Speaker 2: At the same time, Attorney Suzette, you also are an accountant. [00:00:56] Suzette: Yes, Ma'am. [00:00:57] Speaker 2: Where did you get your degree? [00:01:00] Suzette: In accountancy, Ma'am. Yes. At Ateneo de Davao University. [00:01:03] Speaker 2: In Ateneo de Davao, you had a degree of accounting and your Bachelor of Laws is correct, in the University of Middanao? [00:01:11] Suzette: Correct, Ma'am. [00:01:13] Speaker 2: But apart from that, could you confirm your work experience prior to being in-house counsel? Is it a fact that you were financial advisor of PruLife UK in Davao City in September 2017? [00:01:32] Suzette: It's September 2019, Ma'am. Until today, Ma'am. [00:01:35] Speaker 2: Until today, you are financial advisor? [00:01:40] Suzette: Yes, Ma'am. [00:01:40] Speaker 2: Of PruLife? [00:01:42] Suzette: Yes, Ma'am. Until today? Yes, Ma'am. I'm still licensed insurance agent. [00:01:47] Speaker 2: Okay. You mentioned that you are an in-house counsel of GenCorp and Metro, Chao. [00:01:58] Suzette: Correct, Ma'am. [00:01:59] Speaker 2: Correct. And do you see any conflict there between being both general counsel of these two corporations and your being financial advisor to PruLife of UK Davao City? [00:02:14] Suzette: No conflict of interest, Ma'am. Okay. [00:02:17] Speaker 2: You also are based on what we see in what is posted. You also are Special Investigator 3 of PhilHealth Insurance Corporation, correct? [00:02:33] Suzette: Yes, Ma'am. In 2014 to 2019. [00:02:37] Speaker 2: 2019? Are you sure? Because having studied your profile, in one social media, you said, well, it said 2019, but in the other one, it said 2022. Which is it? [00:02:54] Suzette: It's 2019. Okay, 2019. May 2019. I think it's May. [00:03:03] Speaker 2: So you belong to a law firm? [00:03:08] Suzette: Right now, Ma'am. [00:03:09] Speaker 2: Right now? [00:03:10] Suzette: No, Ma'am. [00:03:11] Speaker 2: You are a single practitioner now? [00:03:14] Suzette: Yes, Ma'am. [00:03:14] Speaker 2: But before that, you belong to a law firm. A law firm that practiced or has its principal office in Davao. [00:03:23] Suzette: Yes, Ma'am. [00:03:23] Speaker 2: And even as you were financial advisor, also, this is in Davao City. [00:03:31] Suzette: Yes, Ma'am. [00:03:32] Speaker 2: And also, this law firm, Cantos Balucanag Dureza, is in Davao City. Yes, Ma'am. So all your professional life, work experience, has been in Davao City. [00:03:45] Suzette: Yes, Ma'am. [00:03:46] Speaker 2: And yet, on direct examination, you said, you do not know the vice president. [00:03:53] Suzette: What I said is that I do not have any professional or personal relationship to the vice president, Ma'am. But I know her, being a Davao resident. [00:04:06] Speaker 2: Do you also know the husband? [00:04:10] Suzette: I know the husband. Yes, Ma'am. [00:04:13] Speaker 2: Who is the husband? [00:04:14] Suzette: Man's Carpio. [00:04:16] Speaker 2: Now, your field of practice is, correct me if I'm wrong, corporate and business law, correct? [00:04:24] Suzette: Yes, Ma'am. [00:04:25] Speaker 2: Corporate litigation, correct? [00:04:28] Suzette: Yes, Ma'am. Okay. [00:04:30] Speaker 2: Criminal litigation. [00:04:32] Suzette: Sometimes. [00:04:33] Speaker 2: And, but I see here, family law, correct? [00:04:36] Suzette: Yes, Ma'am. [00:04:37] Speaker 2: So, you're familiar with family law? [00:04:39] Suzette: Yes, Ma'am. [00:04:40] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:04:43] Speaker 2: And, having been, well, being a practitioner in family law, you do know the meaning of absolute community of property, correct? [00:04:56] Suzette: Yes, Ma'am. [00:04:57] Speaker 2: Okay. Now, are you counsel only to these two companies, GenCore and Metro City? [00:05:05] Suzette: No, Ma'am. [00:05:07] Speaker 2: What are the other companies you are counseled to? [00:05:12] Suzette: Golden Global International Land Incorporated. Who owns those companies? I do not have the articles of incorporation with me, but Jaime T. Cruz is one of the stockholders. [00:05:27] Speaker 2: Does the vice president, Armand Carpio, have an interest in those companies? No, Ma'am. Okay. No. You have with you a copy of the forensic? [00:05:44] Suzette: No, Ma'am. [00:05:45] Speaker 2: You have with you. [00:05:47] Speaker 4: We only showed the court copy, attorney. We borrowed from the court. [00:05:52] Speaker 2: Since there's only one more copy. Can we give her the court copy? [00:05:54] Speaker ?: Yes, ma'am. Okay. Attorney Susset? Yes, ma'am. Yes. [00:06:13] Speaker 2: Could you please turn to page 24? Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. [00:06:16] Speaker ?: Yes. [00:06:16] Speaker 2: Could you please turn to page 24 of this forensic report marked for the prosecution as P-2-9-1. Sorry, what page, attorney? Page 24. [00:06:37] Suzette: I'm in page 24, ma'am. I'm in page 24, ma'am. Thank you. [00:06:48] Speaker 2: Thank you. In page 24 of the forensic report, there is a listing here of several companies. which are business interests of the spouses, which were brought to detention or are part of this forensic report of attorney Cabrera. So, my question to you is, could you please take a look at these companies? Yes, ma'am. Okay. There is a company, Davao New Royal Taipan Corporation, 20% ownership of Vice President Sara Yes, ma'am. [00:07:46] Suzette: Yes, ma'am. [00:07:48] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:07:48] Speaker 2: Are you familiar with this company? [00:07:51] Suzette: I've read the name. Yes. [00:07:55] Speaker 2: Okay. Now, if the Vice President here is 20% owner of the company and you are a lawyer, shouldn't she have stated this as well in her sal end? [00:08:07] Speaker 4: Objection, Your Honor. This is cross. [00:08:10] Speaker 2: This is cross. [00:08:11] Speaker 4: The year is important, but number two, calls for opinion and speculation, Your Honor. Your Honor. So, what year is the council referring to? Maybe just respectfully ask. [00:08:19] Speaker 2: She said she's familiar. [00:08:20] Speaker 4: We're asking for the specific year, Attorney. [00:08:22] Speaker 2: If she knows, Your Honor. If she knows. [00:08:25] Speaker 4: Regardless of the year. That would be vague, Your Honor. Then the objection would be vague if there is no year. [00:08:30] Speaker 2: Does she understand the question, council? Do not testify, please, for the witness. Well, I'll allow it for the meantime. [00:08:37] Speaker 1: Yes. Attorney Suzette, do you know the answer to the question of Attorney Kapunan? [00:08:42] Speaker 2: In Davao New Royal Taipan Corporation, this forensic report, which you're looking at, at page 24, states that the Vice President is incorporator to the extent of 20% ownership. Are you familiar with this? Do you have any knowledge about this? [00:09:04] Suzette: I do not have any knowledge about Davao New Royal Taipan Corporation, Your Honor, but I have read the name. What name? This name. The corporate name, Your Honor. [00:09:16] Speaker 2: Okay. And having read the corporate name, would you know if the Vice President has interest in this company? If you know. [00:09:27] Suzette: I do not know, Your Honor. [00:09:29] Speaker 2: Okay. Is here another company, 888 Bistro, which is a proprietorship of Manessa Scarpio. Are you familiar? Would you know this company? No, Your Honor. Yes. And there is Madayao Fischiris Inc., Incorporated, also owned by Manessa Scarpio. Are you familiar? [00:09:54] Suzette: No. Okay. [00:09:56] Speaker 2: Mati Ice Plant and Storage Inc., Incorporated by Manessa Scarpio. Madam Witness? No, ma'am. Amyanan Shores Inc., also incorporated by Manessa Scarpio. [00:10:10] Suzette: I am not familiar with this, ma'am. [00:10:12] Speaker 2: Geometry, Security and Investigation Agency, also incorporated by Manessa Scarpio, a shareholder. I am not familiar with this, ma'am. And Cable Town 88 Shipping and Marine Services Inc., Incorporated by Manessa Scarpio. [00:10:31] Suzette: I am not familiar, ma'am. [00:10:32] Speaker 2: But being stated in your via data that you are a practitioner, one of your fields of expertise is absolute community of property. Under the principle of absolute community of property attorney, these companies which are owned, incorporated, or for which there is equity participation of the husband, Attorney Man Scarpio. Under the principle of absolute community, this should be declared in the SAL-EN of the Vice President. Do you agree? [00:11:17] Suzette: I cannot agree or disagree. Unfortunately, I am no longer familiar with the guidelines and filing of SAL-EN. [00:11:26] Speaker 2: No, but you are familiar with the concept of absolute community of property, correct? Regardless of whether it is covered by guidelines on SAL-EN, under the Family Code, under the absolute community of property principle, what belongs to the husband also belongs to the wife, correct? [00:11:49] Speaker 1: Before the witness answers, yes, Attorney Justin. [00:11:53] Speaker 4: We are willing to stipulate, Your Honor, that all the corporations that were already mentioned and referred to by the prosecution is actually mentioned in the SAL-EN, Your Honor, the Vice President. [00:12:03] Speaker 1: Yes. Disclosed. Disclosed. And to clarify, the Council actually asked two questions. If she is aware of the concept of absolute community and that if the Vice President should declare it in her SAL-EN. Now, as regards to the first part, I'm sure, Attorney Suzette, you know. What's covered by the absolute community of property, which if the good counsel for the panel of prosecutors is correct in her enumeration, these corporations owned by Attorney Carpio would form part of the absolute community of property of the spouses, assuming they do not have any prenuptial agreement. Okay. Would that be a correct real legal statement? [00:12:45] Speaker ?: Attorney Suzette? Yes, Your Honor. [00:12:47] Speaker 1: Okay. Your Witness, Attorney Lorna. [00:12:52] Speaker 2: To the point of the presiding officer, are you aware, Madam Witness, only if you are, if there is any prenuptial agreement between the Vice President and her husband, if you are aware. [00:13:06] Speaker 4: Pardon, Your Honor, but this is quite a stretch. Obviously, the witness would be incompetent to answer that question. [00:13:13] Speaker 1: The witness is already shaking her head, but kindly verbalize it, Attorney Suzette. [00:13:20] Suzette: I do not personally know them, ma'am, so I would have no information regarding that matter. Okay. Thank you. [00:13:28] Speaker 2: Thank you. Now, still on the Forensic Report, which is in front of you. It states here in page 2 thereof, page 2 of what you're looking at, one of the conclusions of the expert witness of the prosecution is stated here. In the third paragraph, it says, "Her," meaning the Vice President, "unexplained wealth also comes from corporations that the spouses have ownership or business interest in. Substantial undeclared income of these corporations amount to fraud, which allows for the piercing of the veil of corporate fiction. Thus, the undeclared income of these corporations is attributable as direct income of the stockholders, which include the Vice President and her spouse." Madam Witness. [00:14:45] Suzette: Yes, ma'am. Okay. [00:14:47] Speaker 2: Are you familiar with the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction? [00:14:53] Suzette: Yes, ma'am. [00:14:54] Speaker 2: Yes. You are an expert in corporate business. [00:14:58] Suzette: I'm not an expert, ma'am, but I am aware of. [00:15:01] Speaker 2: It is your field of practice. I am aware, but I am not an expert. Thank you. Thank you for saying that. But in piercing the veil of corporate fiction, let us go to one of the companies, that subject that was not mentioned by the Defense Council. But there is a third company that I would like to ask you about. It is not -- it is not -- in any of the companies I read, it is not Metro City nor Gen Core. It is a company called Kale 88. Are you familiar with this company? Callie 88. [00:15:45] Speaker 4: Objection, Your Honor. That would be irrelevant. The witness is not from that corporation, Your Honor. [00:15:50] Speaker 2: Your Honor, please. Callie 88. If she knows. We are asking for a vote. Council will allow it. Your Honor, because she has been following this case in social media, according to her. And Kale 88. If you are familiar with Kale 88. [00:16:07] Speaker 1: I am not -- This is not the subject matter of the cross, but the Chair will allow it. You are in a short leash, Council, in so far as Kale 88 is concerned. You may proceed. Witness may answer. [00:16:18] Suzette: I am not actually following the impeachment court, but I have heard Kale 88 in this proceedings, ma'am. [00:16:28] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:16:29] Speaker 2: Will you be prepared to answer questions on Kale 88 if you are asked? [00:16:33] Suzette: I don't know Kale 88, so I do not know how I can be a good witness for that. [00:16:47] Speaker 2: Okay. Good. So you don't know Kale 88, but you do know, based on your testimony, you do know the owner of Jollibee Bolton, that company? [00:17:06] Suzette: GenCorp, yes, ma'am. GenCorp. GenCorp. GenCorp. [00:17:11] Speaker 2: Is the owner? [00:17:12] Suzette: Yes, ma'am. Okay. [00:17:14] Speaker 2: That is the first franchise, correct? Correct, ma'am. Okay. What is the second franchise of Jollibee that you mentioned? [00:17:22] Suzette: Jollibee Matina Crossing. [00:17:27] Speaker 2: Jollibee. [00:17:29] Suzette: Jollibee Matina Crossing. Okay. And the third? Jollibee G Mall. And the fourth? Jollibee Times Square. And the last? Jollibee Abriza. Okay. Why do you know these companies again? Because these stores are under GenCorp, ma'am. Okay. [00:17:54] Speaker 2: But on question of the presiding officer, you were asked, are you familiar with the transfer documents? What was the documentation of the transfer of these companies or these franchises to GenCorp? [00:18:13] Suzette: The transfer of the franchises to GenCorp would be the amendment of the franchise agreement, ma'am. Have you seen the original franchise agreement? I have seen one. The amendment only, ma'am. Not the original. But have you seen? [00:18:32] Speaker 2: You are talking about five. Incidentally, why are you only talking about five? There is a sixth Jollibee owned by GenCorp. I am not aware of the sixth. I am not aware of the sixth. There is a sixth Jollibee in here, in Quezon City. You do not know about this franchise? I do not know about the sixth Jollibee, ma'am. Okay. But it is under GenCorp. [00:18:57] Speaker ?: You don't know? [00:18:58] Speaker 2: I don't know. So your knowledge is limited only to what happens in Davao City? Is that what you're saying? Because you go to the stores. [00:19:06] Suzette: As far as I know, ma'am, there are only five branches of Jollibee under GenCorp. [00:19:14] Speaker 2: Well, according to the forensic report of Attorney Cabrera, there are actually six. But I will accept your answer that you do not know that there is a sixth franchise in Quezon City. Maybe because you haven't gone and eaten in the store, correct? Okay. [00:19:34] Suzette: I haven't gone to a Jollibee in Quezon City, correct? Okay. Thank you. [00:19:39] Speaker 2: Now, I will show you now again, referring to -- at this point, Your Honor, may I ask the indulgence of this court? Because we have been talking about many companies, succession of companies, can we present a slide, a little bit? [00:20:02] Speaker 1: Okay. Yes, counsel. Who prepared the slide? You prepared the slide? We prepared. The prosecution prepared the slide. [00:20:09] Speaker 2: The prosecution prepared the slide, Jerome. [00:20:11] Speaker 4: Kindly, you may -- Your Honor, before the court rules, just two things. First, who prepared the slides? But number two, for the record, I just perused through the annexes of the forensic report, and there's really only five indicated in the annexes. Jollibee branches. [00:20:28] Speaker 1: Subject matter of redirect. Understood, Your Honor. [00:20:32] Speaker 4: But may we ask the first question, Your Honor. Sorry. [00:20:36] Speaker 1: Yes. The prosecution prepared the slide, according to Attorney Lorna. Where's the slide? [00:20:41] Speaker 4: May we ask what the contents of the slides are? [00:20:45] Speaker 2: This, Your Honor, please, as can be seen on the screen and for better appreciation of the senator judges, this is an overview of the two companies mentioned by counsel and attorney during the direct examination. Metro City Chow Foods Corporation and GenCorp. We will start with Metro City Chow Foods Corporation. [00:21:15] Speaker 1: Without prejudice to any objections, counsel may raise at the appropriate time. Understood. We're okay for now, Your Honor. Let's try to walk through it. [00:21:30] Speaker 2: Can I see that? Can it be seen? Can I see? I can't see. We have on the screen the corporate history of Metro City Chow Foods Corporation. Can I read? I can't read that far. [00:21:55] Speaker 4: Your Honor, apologies. Justin, yes. Yes. This is cross-examination and we prefer that questions be asked on the witness rather than an illustrative PowerPoint be flashed, Your Honor. May we ask how is this relevant to the questioning of the witness? If at all, if these statements are really just a summary, these can be raised through questions, Your Honor, not through flashing it in a screen. [00:22:23] Speaker 2: Your Honor, please, counsel is so excited. These are premature objections. I haven't even asked the question. [00:22:30] Speaker 4: No, Your Honor. The objection is hinged on the flashing of what appears to be a PowerPoint slide which allegedly, supposedly makes a summary about the company and makes conclusions, Your Honor. The proper way to cross-examine a witness is through questions, not flashing slides, which I don't even know what the narrative is being introduced or the provenance of those statements. This can be taken out of context, Your Honor. This is a proper subject of cross, through questions, not through slides, Your Honor, with all due respect, of course. It would have been different if they flashed a document, Your Honor, and confronted it with the witness, which is normal in cross-examination. What is not normal in cross-examination is presenting a slide of conclusions and alleged findings and confronting that with the witness. If those were statements, Your Honor, those would be argumentative. [00:23:23] Speaker 2: Your Honor, please, again, I will ask questions based, this is a factual summary of the testimony of the witness, Your Honor. She said she is familiar with the, this morning's testimony was based on her personal knowledge, and she said, based on the records of the company. These are based on the records of the company, and I will ask her questions. For instance, if counsel would be more patient, Your Honor, he will see the relevance of this summary. First of all... [00:24:02] Speaker 4: Your Honor, apologies. [00:24:04] Speaker 1: Is that right, Attorney Lorna? [00:24:06] Speaker 4: Last response, Your Honor. Yes, Attorney. If they are claiming that what is contained in this summary slide or presentation is from the testimony of the witness, the proper way to do it is not through a slide, but by referring through the records of the case, by referring to the prior statements of the witness as contained in the transcript of stenographic notes. We have to call a spade a spade, Your Honor. These are statements from the prosecution summarized in a slide rather than in the proper way... [00:24:34] Speaker 1: Once you've asked the question and the witness is accordingly answered, then you can show the summary of what you have elicited from the witness, which I assume it would be this. And I've seen the other slides as well, Attorney Justin, for your information. They will be showing previously marked exhibits, correct me if I'm wrong, Attorney Lorna, of GIS and silence, which may be used to confront the witness, which I will allow at that particular time. In regard to this first slide, Attorney Lorna, kindly ask the questions and when all of these... I have a copy anyway. If all of these have been established through the witness, then you can show the slide by way of summary for the guidance of the senator judges. [00:25:31] Speaker 4: Given the ruling of the presiding officer, we ask that it be taken down. It's ordered. Thank you, Your Honor. [00:25:36] Speaker 2: We submit, Your Honor. [00:25:38] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:25:39] Speaker 2: Madam Witness, when again were you retained by... Let's start with GenCorp. May I start with GenCorp? When were you retained by GenCorp as in-house counsel? I started May 2022. In May 2022. [00:25:58] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:25:59] Speaker 2: And you were retained as in-house counsel and you stated your functions as in-house counsel. Is there an external counsel for GenCorp? For GenCorp? [00:26:13] Suzette: Right now? [00:26:15] Speaker 2: No. No. Since 2022. So you were the only lawyer of GenCorp in 2022 as in-house counsel? Yes, ma'am. There was no external counsel? None that I am aware of, ma'am. So, as in-house counsel of GenCorp, anything that is legal is referred to you? Yes, ma'am. Correct? Anything and everything? Not everything. Is referred to you? Yes, ma'am. When the general information sheets are filed, you said on direct that you are not the corporate secretary, correct? [00:27:02] Suzette: Correct, ma'am. [00:27:04] Speaker 2: And the financial statements are prepared. You also stated that you are not the auditor. I am not the auditor, ma'am. What then is your participation in these general information sheets from 2022 to the present? [00:27:24] Suzette: I collate the general information sheets after they are filed. [00:27:28] Speaker 2: Collate, meaning you staple them. You collate them. What do you mean by collate? I keep copies, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. You only keep copies. You only keep copies. You do not review if the data given is correct. You do not make your own independent legal judgment on whether the data there is correct. [00:27:54] Suzette: No. [00:27:55] Speaker 2: None. The same in general information sheets. The same for the financial statements. Yes. The same. You are aware now. You are aware also. I will ask you, are you aware of the salence of the vice president? [00:28:17] Suzette: No, ma'am. [00:28:18] Speaker 2: You are not aware. Are you aware that the vice president stated in her salence that she is a shareholder of Gencor? I have seen it. You have seen it. And being the internal counsel of Gencor, did you not see it as part of your duties as in-house counsel to make correction if this particular entry in the salence of the vice president is inaccurate? Isn't it your duty as counsel, internal counsel of Gencor, to call their attention to the fact that, hey, the vice president listed herself as a shareholder of our company? Did you not bring that to the attention of Gencor? [00:29:17] Suzette: No, ma'am. [00:29:18] Speaker 2: No? Why not? Because I- Wasn't that your- [00:29:23] Speaker ?: Because I- Wasn't that your- [00:29:23] Speaker 2: You said that it is part of your functions as internal counsel to look at records, to give legal advice? [00:29:32] Suzette: I believe that my function as counsel of Gencor, your honor, does not involve looking at other people's salence And adjusting our records just because somebody declared that he is a stockholder of our corporation. [00:29:55] Speaker 2: It is not somebody. It is the vice president and madam counsel, attorney. If it were not the vice president, let's say there is a certain attorney, Virgil Ligutan, who puts, assuming he then becomes mayor of Leyte, and he puts in his salon that he is a shareholder of Gencor corporation, when he is not. And you know, you said, you know, isn't it, doesn't it behoove you to mention to Gencor, somebody is misrepresenting to be a shareholder of the company? [00:30:39] Speaker 4: Objection, your honor. I'm not saying that attorney Ligutan won't be a mayor sometime in his life, but that would be speculative for now, your honor. I'm not saying there's no time, I'm just saying right now it's speculative, your honor. [00:30:55] Speaker 1: It's hypothetical, your honor. I think the witness, I think the witness, I think the witness, I think the witness already answered that she didn't find a need to inform or do anything with respect to the vice president or anyone for that matter. I think she didn't mention the name of the vice president intentionally. She mentioned anybody, which applies to attorney Ligutan already, assuming he runs and wins for mayor. The witness said anybody counseled. She did not refer to the vice president. [00:31:26] Speaker 2: If anyone makes a misrepresentation, if a public officer makes a misrepresentation, that he or she is a shareholder of Gencor as internal counsel, it's your duty to bring it to the attention of the company for which your in-house sole, sole lawyer, there is no external counsel, you're the only lawyer, you did not bring it to the attention of the company. [00:31:57] Speaker 4: Your honor, asked and answered, and it is also speculative, your honor. [00:32:01] Speaker 2: Shaking her head, your honor. She answered, but she... [00:32:04] Speaker 1: Attorney Suzette, kindly answer, yes, I've been seeing you either shaking your head or nodding. Kindly verbalize your answers. [00:32:12] Suzette: Yes, your honor. [00:32:13] Speaker 4: Sorry, your honor. May we ask a ruling, your honor. [00:32:16] Speaker 1: Same objection, your honor. Move on counsel. Move on, attorney Ligutan. [00:32:20] Speaker 4: Thank you, your honor. [00:32:27] Speaker 2: May I call your attention to the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability. You're a lawyer of 15 years. I assume you're familiar with this Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability. And I call your attention, Madam Counsel, to Section 11 of the Code. You have no copy. I will read Section 11 of this CIPAR. Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability to which all of us lawyers, in-house, external counsel, senators, congressmen, prosecution lawyers, adhere to. So, it says in Section 11, false representations of statements and a duty to correct. If I may read here, a lawyer shall not make any false representations or statements. And a lawyer shall be liable for any material damage caused by such false representations or statements. Correct? [00:33:53] Speaker 4: Objection, your honor. Misleading. It's misrepresenting how the provision is to be applied. The witness already answered that it's not her obligation in respect to other entities. And it also assumes facts, not yet established in evidence, your honor. [00:34:11] Speaker 1: Counsel, I think the question was just if she was aware of that CIPRA rule. We're not yet there. Attorney Suzette, are you familiar with that rule under CIPRA? [00:34:24] Suzette: I am ready to listen, your honor. [00:34:27] Speaker 2: Any false representation made, if known to the lawyer, must be corrected. Especially if, in addition to that, it is complicated by the fact that the person who misrepresented is a lawyer herself. The vice president being her lawyer herself, misrepresenting in her sal-en that she, or representing in her sal-en that she is a shareholder of Gencor. Objection. [00:35:07] Speaker 1: What's the question, counsel? [00:35:10] Speaker 2: What is the objection? [00:35:11] Speaker 1: What is the question, counsel? Before the objection, what is your question, counsel? You laid the basis. [00:35:17] Speaker 2: It is the contention of your defense lawyer that Vice President Sara is not a shareholder, is not a shareholder, is not a board member, is not a member of any committee, does not participate in management of Gencor. Because, and you affirm, and you affirm, her name is not in the general information sheet. You affirm that? [00:35:49] Speaker 4: Your honor, before the witness answers, just a manifestation. For the record, we are not the lawyer of the witness, since earlier, the counsel for prosecution stated that you're lawyer from the defense. We are not the lawyer of the witness, your honor. And second, your honor, for the record, and to enrich the records, it is not our contention. It was the answer of the witness through the questions that we propounded, your honor. [00:36:17] Speaker 1: Noted, it's not an objection to the question. Kindly answer the question, attorney Suzette. [00:36:22] Suzette: I confirm that the Vice President is not a stockholder as indicated in the GIS. [00:36:31] Speaker 2: Okay, so you confirm, based on your personal knowledge and the records presented by counsel for the respondent, that she is not stated there as shareholder. Yes, ma'am. Okay, why then, if you know, if she is not a stockholder, director, officer, ex-com, management, whatever committee of GenCorp, why is there a statement in the Sal-En of the Vice President of this company, GenCorp, as being part of her declaration? [00:37:19] Suzette: I cannot answer for the Vice President, ma'am. [00:37:23] Speaker 2: You cannot answer for the Vice President. Yes. Thank you. So, only the Vice President can explain why she listed herself as being a shareholder of GenCorp. Is that what you're saying? She can answer, yes. She can answer. Thank you. But for now, I will ask you for now, though, has GenCorp, as in-house counsel of GenCorp, would you know if GenCorp, this being a very public case, and covered by national media, and covered by an impeachment court, would you know if GenCorp has issued any public statement stating for the record, and so that the public is not confused? Has GenCorp made any public statement, through you, or through media, denying that the Vice President has any interest, shareholding or otherwise, in GenCorp? [00:38:36] Suzette: No. [00:38:37] Speaker 2: No such statement, Madam Witness. [00:38:41] Suzette: No such statement. [00:38:45] Speaker 2: Would you know why? [00:38:48] Suzette: No, ma'am. [00:38:49] Speaker 2: No, also. No. Let us now go to... Earlier, on direct examination, many questions were asked about GenCorp and the franchises. [00:39:13] Suzette: Yes, ma'am. Correct. [00:39:15] Speaker 2: And in connection with the direct examination, you mentioned, in answer to the Defense Council, that the Vice President has no interest or does not own any of the five franchises located in Davao. You confirm that? [00:39:36] Suzette: I confirm, ma'am. [00:39:40] Speaker 2: Okay. Okay. And these franchises, as you correctly clarified, are franchises not owned by any shareholder, but by the corporation. [00:39:58] Suzette: Yes, ma'am. Okay. [00:39:59] Speaker 2: Not a single shareholder of GenCorp owns the franchise. [00:40:06] Suzette: Yes, ma'am. Correct. [00:40:07] Speaker 2: So, if it is GenCorp that, through a series of transfers of corporations, if it is GenCorp that ended up with five Jollibee franchises, it is then GenCorp, the company that owns the franchises. [00:40:30] Suzette: Yes, ma'am. [00:40:31] Speaker 2: Correct. And if it were true, since no denial has been made by GenCorp, nor by the Vice President, admitted through silence. So, if it be true that GenCorp owns the five franchises, and if we were to accept the theory of, if you were to accept the theory of our forensic expert, that she, that she, the Vice President, has made, has a 20% interest by analogy, and the reasoning is in the report, if it be so, based on the reasoning made by the forensic expert of the prosecution, that even if she is not stated, that even if she is not stated in the GIS, since she made an admission, or she made a statement in the SAL-N, that she is a shareholder, then, by reasoning, if there are five franchises owned by the company, then the Vice President herself, through the company, owns the franchise, correct? [00:42:01] Speaker 4: Your Honor, the question was quite long. May I just ask that it be repeated? So, I would know. I got lost in the middle. May I ask that it be repeated, Your Honor. [00:42:14] Speaker 1: Can we do so, Attorney Lorna? [00:42:16] Speaker 2: I will shorten the question, Your Honor. [00:42:18] Speaker 1: Yes, please. [00:42:19] Speaker 2: GenCorp owns the five franchises, correct, Madam Witness? [00:42:24] Suzette: Yes, ma'am. [00:42:25] Speaker 2: Okay, and if GenCorp owns the five Jollibee franchises, the shareholders own, the GenCorp has shareholders, correct? [00:42:38] Suzette: GenCorp has shareholders, yes. [00:42:40] Speaker 2: And if these five franchises earn money, the shareholders are entitled to the earnings or dividends from these franchises, correct? They would have an interest. The corporation is an artificial entity. The corporation is owned by shareholders. And in your, in the franchise situation, the franchises are owned by the corporation, correct? So, if, this is the question now, Attorney. If the vice president declared in her Salen that she is a shareholder of GenCorp, then, therefore, she has a financial pecuniary interest in the franchises which are owned by the company of which she is a shareholder. Correct? [00:43:45] Speaker 4: Objection, Your Honor. No basis, speculative, and misleading. The witness has already previously answered that the vice president has no interest and is not a stockholder and has no interest in these, in franchises, Your Honor. [00:44:00] Speaker 2: Your Honor, please, that is not, I think council is not objecting to the question. [00:44:05] Speaker 4: I am objecting to the question, Your Honor. [00:44:07] Speaker 2: That is not the question, Your Honor. The question is, since the vice president herself, by her own admission, stated in her Salen that she is a shareholder of GenCorp, then she is a shareholder of the company that owns the five franchises. It is just direct reasoning, logic, it's just logic. Your Honor, I apologize. Can you see the logic of that question, Attorney? [00:44:34] Speaker 1: Allow me, allow me, councils, so that we can move forward. Attorney Suzette, nilagay po kasi ng ikalawang pangulo sa salian niya na stockholder siya ng GenCorp. Kung ang basihan man nun, ay meron siyang interest, meron siyang loose investment, ika nga nang sinabi niyo, o meron siyang gustong ibalik o return of capital. Nilagay po niya rin na stockholder siya ng GenCorp. Hindi po niya in-specify na yung Jollibee lang sa Times Square. Bagaman nilagay niya sa kanyang Salen na GenCorp formerly known as Times Square B. Pero GenCorp pa rin yung kumpanya ang sinabi at hindi nagbanggit ng branch. Kaya po, bilang abogado, kung yun po ang nakita niyo, stockholder sa GenCorp, resonable bang interpretasyon na kasama dun lahat ng pag-aari ng GenCorp, o pwede mo bang ilimita lamang sa isang branch tulad ng sinabi niyo? Kung ang makikita niyo lamang ay yung deklarasyon ng Vice President na stockholder sa ng GenCorp. [00:45:46] Suzette: Her unilateral declaration, Your Honor, will not make her a stockholder. [00:45:52] Speaker 1: That's her answer, Counsel. [00:45:57] Speaker 2: What do you mean by unilateral? What concept is unilateral? Her own... Madam Witness. Her own... Her own declaration, you're saying? How would you characterize... [00:46:11] Suzette: May I finish my answer, Your Honor? No, no, no, no, no, no, no. [00:46:15] Speaker 2: How would you characterize a statement made by the Vice President in her Salen? I would characterize it as an admission. And you are saying what? It is a unilateral declaration? [00:46:31] Speaker 1: Counsel, allow me, before I recognize Senator Judge Luxon, unilateral vis-a-vis GenCorp. But not unilateral in relation to whatever admissions the Vice President may have made in her Salen. Senator Judge Ping Luxon, please. What is your pleasure, sir? [00:46:50] Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. Representative Officer. This is getting to be interesting, but also confusing. From a layman to a lawyer, Attorney Susset, between an admission against interest, notarized, and official public documents, like the GIS, which has more admissibility and probative weight. [00:47:20] Suzette: The SEC records, Your Honor. [00:47:23] Speaker 5: SEC records? Are you sure? [00:47:29] Suzette: For me, the SEC records, Your Honor. [00:47:31] Speaker 5: I will refer you to Section 27, Rule 130, Rules of Court. Are you familiar? [00:47:43] Suzette: I do not memorize the Rules of Court, Your Honor. [00:47:46] Speaker 5: Mas may probative weight or admissibility weight yung admission against interest. [00:47:52] Speaker 2: Correct. [00:47:54] Speaker 5: Meron nga akong kakilala sa TV lang nag-admit, nakulong eh. Ito, notarized pa ito, itong Salen. Maraming salamat, Mr. President Officer. [00:48:06] Speaker 1: If I may... The remarks are noted, but that is stated by Senator Judge Luxon, that it's for the appreciation of Senator Judges. Your Honor. Yes, Attorney Justin. [00:48:17] Speaker 4: With due respect, Your Honor, with all due respect, of course, to the queries and the interest of the good Senators, but we have to be clear, Your Honor, admission against interest is not a rule on probative value, Your Honor. It is an exception to the hearsay rule, Your Honor. In other words, Your Honor, comparing pieces of evidence and statements and the probative weight thereof, with all due respect, is done by the respective court, and in this case, the Senator Judges, but just for the record, Your Honor, admissions against interest is not a rule on determining probative weight. It is an exception to the hearsay rule, just for the record. [00:49:00] Speaker 1: As stated by the court, as stated by the presiding officer, that is subject to the appreciation of each Senator Judge with respect to the evidence being presented. Move on, Attorney Lorna. [00:49:12] Speaker 2: Just to make a counter-manifestation, Your Honor, because Council made a manifestation that admission has no probative value. May I call the court's attention, and rightly pointed out by Senator Ping, admission in the hierarchy of evidence is the highest. It is the highest in terms of hierarchy of evidence, and to that, I will quote section 27 of the rules of court. Section 27 on testimonial evidence, saying that the act declaration, which is the sullen, the act declaration or omission of a party to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him or her. That is section 27, so, if I may, Your Honor. [00:50:05] Speaker 1: Everybody actually is correct. Nobody is wrong. Attorney Justin is correct in that admission against interest is indeed an exception to the hearsay rule. Attorney Lorna is likewise correct that admission, per se, has been characterized, in fact, as the queen of evidence will carry more probative weight, especially if it comes from the accused. Let's move on, Council. This is not for us to decide, but for each individual judge to appreciate and decide. [00:50:35] Speaker 2: Also, to that point, Your Honor, because Council did say, attorney did say, in response to a question by the kind senator, ano yung mas mabigat, yung public document ba, or yung admission? And the answer there, and this is by way of manifestation, ang sagot, mas mabigat ang public document. Forgetting, Your Honor, that the SALEN itself is a public document. Not only is it a public document, if we weigh two public documents, a general information sheet that is certified to by the corporate secretary and not by the vice president, compared to a a SALEN that is certified to and sworn to personally, not by the CORSEC, not by an accountant, but by the vice president herself, in the weighing of two public documents, a public document personally sworn and subscribed to by the person, vice president herself, carries higher weight than a general information sheet. But now, going to my next point, because I can see... [00:51:52] Speaker 1: Yes, let's move on. May I ask, attorney Lorna, I only ask this not to abruptly terminate any cross, recross, or redirect, but mahababa ba yung cross mo? No, I ask this question because papauwiin ko na yung mga bangko dahil nakakahiya naman. Napakarami nila at kanina pa sila nag-iintay. Nasa cross pa lang tayo, may redirect, may recross pa, hindi pa kasama yung debate, yung dalawa sa isa't isa. At wala pa yung interjection ng senator judge. So, mahababa ba, attorney Lorna? Yes, Your Honor. Okay. So, in that case, with the permission of counsel for respondent, chair instructs the clerk to kindly inform the witnesses subpoenaed for today from the banks that they are excused for today. The subpoena still remains in forces against them, covering their attendance tomorrow at 10 a.m. So, it is the hope of the chair in the court that we will be able to at least finish this witness today and then call it a day for this trial, for the trial today, rather. Again, without rushing you, attorney Lorna. You may proceed, attorney Lorna. [00:53:14] Speaker 2: Thank you, Your Honor. Let us go to the concept, as you said, of a term, loose investment. [00:53:24] Suzette: Yes, ma'am. [00:53:25] Speaker 2: Okay. And in reference to loose investment, Madam Witness, is this an accounting term or is this something that you thought of? It is not an accounting term. So, what do you mean, then, by a loose investment with reference to the monies of the vice president in one of the Jollibee franchises? [00:53:47] Suzette: The loose investment was for a prior corporation and not in the current corporation, but it was carried over as carried over in the sense that because of the loose investment, she has a share in the profits. [00:54:11] Speaker 2: Okay, wait, let us clarify this. Is there, because the term loose investment came out from you in reference to the fifth Jollibee franchise, correct? [00:54:26] Suzette: The Times Square branch. [00:54:28] Speaker 2: Times Square franchise. Now, is this a loose investment of the vice president in the franchise or is it a loose investment in... The company, the company, Time Core? [00:54:44] Suzette: It is a loose investment in the company, not in the franchise. In the company? Or in the store, actually. Okay. The store is a franchise? The franchise, when the vice president made her investment, there was yet a franchise granted. [00:55:09] Speaker 2: She made an investment in a franchise owned by Time. [00:55:16] Suzette: She made an investment in a store that was supposed to operate a Jollibee. [00:55:24] Speaker 2: Let's not get confused. There is a franchise which is an intangible right. You cannot touch a franchise. It is the right to operate a business. It is a franchise. If you have that right to operate a franchise, you have stores. You may have one store, two stores, three stores. But do you agree with me that a franchise right is separate to investing in a store? Yes. Okay. So what did the vice president invest in? Investing in a store. In a store? One store? [00:56:07] Suzette: Yes. Okay. [00:56:09] Speaker 2: How much was that investment in a store? And wait a minute. Before that, who owns that store? What does that store sell? The store now is owned by GenCorp. Before. At the time that she invested in that store. What did that store sell? Banana chips? [00:56:33] Suzette: No. What did it sell? It was supposed to be a Jollibee store, ma'am, but it did not materialize. Oh, she invested in the store because it had a Jollibee franchise. In the hope of getting a franchise, ma'am. And did that franchise continue? That franchise was not granted to that particular corporation. [00:56:57] Speaker 2: So in other words, if she invested in that particular store with the expectation that it will open, she is required to, what you say, a return. [00:57:11] Suzette: Yes, ma'am. [00:57:12] Speaker 2: And that is your explanation to the question of the defense counsel as to the figures mentioned in what page is that? Counsel, can you help me? [00:57:25] Speaker 4: Now, if you are referring to table 39, I think that would be page 37. [00:57:31] Speaker 2: Thank you. Can you please look at table 39? [00:57:55] Speaker ?: Can you please look at table 39? Can you please look at table 39? Can you please look at table 39? Can you please look at table 39? Can you please look at table 39? Can you please look at table 39? Can you please look at table 39? Can you please look at table 39? Can you please look at table 39? Can you please look at table 39? Can you please look at table 39? Can you please look at table 39? Can you please look at table 39? Can you please look at table 39? Can you please look at table 39? Can you please look at table 39? Can you please look at table 39? Can you please look at table 39? [00:58:13] Speaker 6: Can you please look at table 39? [00:58:14] Speaker 2: Can you please look at table 39? Can you please look at table 39? Can you please look at table 39? Can you please look at table 39? Can you please look at table 39? [00:58:36] Suzette: Can you please look at table 39? Can you please look at table 39? Can you please look at table 39? Can you please look at table 39? [00:58:40] Speaker ?: Can you please look at table 39? Can you please look at table 39? Can you please look at table 39? Can you please look at table 39? Can you please look at table 39? Can you please look at table 39? Can you please look at table 39? Can you please look at table 39? [00:58:55] Speaker 2: Can you please look at table 39? In direct examination, your direct examination, counsel for the respondent belied the conclusions of prosecution's expert witness under the column, total computed undeclared income from GenCorp, correct? [00:59:15] Speaker 4: Yes, ma'am. Your Honor. [00:59:16] Speaker 2: And you characterize this. [00:59:18] Speaker 4: Sorry, Your Honor, just a clarification. For the record, the good counsel for the prosecutors mentioned that counsel for the defense belied the computations. Me, Your Honor, I was just asking questions and eliciting answers from the witness. [00:59:36] Speaker 1: I think she's referring to the author. [00:59:42] Speaker ?: Yes, Your Honor. [00:59:42] Speaker 2: Because they said in the offer that they will present evidence contradicting the allegations or the findings. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. column total computed undeclared income from GenCOR which is in table 39. On direct examination, you said what when you were asked because my understanding is these are dividends. These are dividends which should have been declared to the shareholders of GenCOR arising from the franchises, the Jollibee franchises, but you can correct me if I'm wrong and indeed you did say that these monies here are to quote you return of capital. You said this is return of capital. [01:00:55] Speaker 4: Your Honor, misleading, Your Honor. When the witness testified earlier about return of capital, she was not referring to the numbers that are highlighted right now as displayed on the screen. She was referring to this summary, the figures on the own summary that we asked to be marked and that she produced during the trial, Your Honor. I'm saying it's misleading, Your Honor, because the council is making it seem that the return of capital are those indicated in the forensic report. [01:01:28] Speaker 1: My understanding is that she was referring to, Attorney Kapunan was referring to, which I'm looking at right now actually, the documents signed by the accountant. That's your understanding, Attorney Suzette, [01:01:39] Suzette: correct? The question of Attorney Kapunan refers to table 39 of the forensic report, Your Honor. [01:01:46] Speaker 1: So I will answer for you. So the answer is no. Yes, Your Honor, the answer is no. But in relation to the accountant's report, that's what you're referring to as return on capital. That is correct, Your Honor. Return of capital. That is correct, Your Honor. The total of 2.142369.14 million. Yes, Your Honor. Okay. [01:02:09] Speaker 2: And so when you say return of capital, 2.1 million return on capital. Okay. My understanding, my understanding is a return on capital means that you invested, correct? Yes. Okay. Which means you're telling us that she invested a total of 2.1 [01:02:38] Suzette: in that one store, owned by Times Square, correct? The 2.1 is not investment, but the return of capital. How much capital did she put in? As I mentioned earlier, ma'am, that there are no records on the [01:03:00] Speaker 2: exact amount of the investment. Okay. So you're saying that this is return on capital is based on your understanding of what the money is going to her are for? Yes. Okay. Now, where is the money coming from? Well, before that, where did she invest? Don't tell me in a store. In Davao Bounty, ma'am. In? Davao Bounty. Okay. Let's go to Davao Bounty. Have you seen the articles of incorporation of Davao Bounty? Yes, ma'am. Okay. I will show you. In Davao Bounty, in the articles of incorporation, I will show you. The authorised capital. Could you look at Davao Bounty? You have the articles? Thank you. Are you looking at the articles of incorporation of Davao Bounty, Times Foods Corporation? Exhibit P-Roman numeral 2-2-1-N-P-1 of the prosecution. Okay. In the articles of incorporation of Davao Bounty, Times Foods Corporation, in particular, paragraph 8, it says, "At least 25% of the authorised capital has been subscribed, and at least 25% of the total subscriptions has been paid up as follows." And there is a listing here, among others: Jaime T Cruz, Richie Evette L. Cruz, Sara Z. Duterte, Felisa Titan, Dolly Grace, G. Yustre. In particular, I'll call your attention when you say return of investment. Sara Z. Duterte, per this articles of incorporation, subscribe to 1,875 shares, in the total amount of 187,500, and she only paid 46,875 pesos. So, in sum, her investment in this company that you said was giving back return on investment of a total amount of 2.1. Her investment is only 46,875, based on these articles of incorporation. My question to you is, are you referring to any other articles of incorporation? Because this is what the article says. Her only investment paid up is 46,000. Do you have any other document attesting to what Sara V. Duterte invested then in this company? No. No other document. Okay. So, you have no basis for saying that this total of 2.1 million, which you characterize as return on investment. There is no basis for your saying that. [01:07:09] Speaker 4: Objection, Your Honor. Misleading and argumentative. [01:07:12] Speaker 1: Argumentative. Argumentative. Move on, counsel. We get the point. [01:07:15] Speaker 2: Okay. 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. What then is the 2.1 million for? That was returned to the Vice President. [01:07:37] Speaker 4: Asked and answered, Your Honor. The witness has already repeatedly testified that this is return of capital, Your Honor. [01:07:43] Speaker 2: Your Honor, please, precisely this is gross. The capital she put in is only 46,875, and yet the return is 2.1 million for a company, Your Honor, that has been dissolved and did not continue the franchise, and which was absorbed by Gencore, Your Honor. How can that be explained? [01:08:12] Speaker 1: The witness answered that it is for return of capital, the 2.1 million. When asked what capital, she replied, because of Davao bounty. Yes. As correctly pointed out by counsel, her capital contribution is only that, and counsel asked the witness, what else, if any, capital should be returned, given that her contribution is only 48,000, and she said she's not aware of any other. That was already answered, counsel. Yes, Your Honor. Yes, Your Honor. Kung may ibang rason man, hindi nyo na alam. Ang alam nyo lang, Davao bounty na pinapakita nga dito, eh dapat matagal ng bayad. Yes, Attorney Zet. At hindi nyo rin kayang paliwanan kung bakit umabot na ng 2.1, samantalang yung contribution nyo sa Davao bounty ay mababa lamang. Yes, Your Honor. Okay. That's our answer, Attorney Lorna. [01:09:29] Speaker 2: Okay. 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. Is that it? Davao bounty. Davao bounty, yes ma'am. Davao bounty. That is the loose investment. [01:09:50] Suzette: Yes ma'am. [01:09:51] Speaker 2: Okay. But that loose investment also is the explanation being used for why the name of the Vice President is not in the GIS. Is that what you're saying? Because she is not a shareholder, she just made the loose investment. [01:10:14] Speaker 1: Misleading, Your Honor. Witnesses, witness is intelligent enough to answer. Attorney Zet, you may answer the way you understand the question that have been posed to you. [01:10:27] Suzette: She is not in the GIS of Gencorp because she is not a stockholder. [01:10:33] Speaker 2: Per the GIS, but she is a stockholder per her declaration or admission in her statement of assets and liabilities. Yes ma'am witness. What is the question Your Honor? 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? If any, if you can. [01:11:23] Speaker 4: Your Honor, apologies and with all due 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. She already explained that she cannot answer for the Vice President, Your Honor. In respect to clarifying that. So to ask the witness how you can reconcile that inconsistency, the witness already answered. She cannot answer for the Vice President. [01:11:49] Speaker 1: Yes. To abbreviate counsels, to abbreviate the proceedings. And I guess this is in the mind of some of the Senator judges as well. Attorney Suzette, sabi nyo, return of capital at sabi nyo, anong capital yun? Davao Bounty. Sa Davao Bounty, ang binayaran lamang ng Vice President, ayon sa record, ay 48,000. Yung binibigay ng Gen Corp Times Square Branch Jollibee sa kanya mula 2022, 45x na, 45x na, nung kanyang investment sa Davao Bounty. Hindi na po ito, and please take note of the preposition I will use. Hindi na po ito return of investment. Return on investment na po ito. Return of investment, hindi po ba? Ginamit nyo ka sa ganina, return of investment eh. Binalik yung ininvest. Binibinalik yung kapital lang. Return on investment, may kita na yung kapital. Kasi nga, yung binibinayaran lang ng Vice President, ayon sa dokumento, ay 48,000 sa Davao Bounty. Ngayon, posibleng may ibang dahilan na hindi nyo alam. At ang sagot nyo, hindi nyo haalam kung ano pa yung iba. To your knowledge, ito lang po yun. So, base sa sagot nyo, hindi lang po ito return of investment, return on investment na po ito, maliba na lang kung may alam pa kayo at masasabing iba pang investment ng Vice President na binabalik. Kung wala na po, then we will leave it at that. Wala na po, Attorney Suzette? [01:13:38] Suzette: Wala na po. [01:13:40] Speaker 1: Wala kayong alam. Pero posibleng meron, hindi nyo lang alam. Would that be a fair statement? [01:13:46] Suzette: Hindi ko nga po alam kung meron because I could not verify it from other records. [01:13:53] Speaker 1: That's the answer of the Witness Council. Move on, Attorney Lorna. [01:13:56] Speaker 2: Whether it be in line with the questioning of the presiding officer, whether it be return on investment or a return of investment, Madam Council, you are following. It is still income, correct? Yes. Whether binalik yung ininvest mo, binalik yan. Income yan. [01:14:28] Speaker 1: With the indulgence of Attorney Lorna, what is the pleasure of Senator Judge Rafi? [01:14:34] Speaker 6: Kanina pa ako nagtataka, Mr. Presiding Officer, alam naman niya kung bakit siya kinuhang witness today para sa unexplained wealth ni BP Sara for her to explain the unexplainable. And yet, marabi siya mga hindi alam. Tulad na lang nung return on investment or return of investment, she could have at least asked and made some research. Tinanong siya sa sana yung GenCore. Ano ba talaga ito? Return of investment or return on investment? And she cannot answer that simple question from the prosecution. Sana, alam mo pupunta ka rito, Madam Witness, gumawa ka ng mga research. Tulad yan, return of investment ba or return on investment? Tapos ngayon, wala man lang maipakitang dokumento tulad ng kontrata o cancel check na para ipatunay na yun talaga ay return of investment. Kalimbawa na lang. Diba alam mo yung may cancel check kung tawagin? Kasi kanina nabanggit mo cheque ang ibinayad para dun sa return of investment? [01:15:42] Suzette: Yes, Your Honor. [01:15:43] Speaker 6: So may cancel check yun. Nakita mo ba yung cancel check? [01:15:46] Suzette: No, I did not. [01:15:47] Speaker 6: No, you should have asked a copy of that cancel check. Kasi alam mo, magkitistig ko ngayon dito. You should have asked for the contract. Ito ay return of investment, sige nasa niyong kontrata. Kung walang kontrata, nasa niyong cancel check. Kasi sa cancel check, sa cheque, nilalagay doong kumpara saan niyong binabayad sa kanya. Tama? So you should have at least asked from GEMCOR a copy of that cancel check. Para pagpunta mo rito, readying ready ka na. It seems to me, 15 years ka abogado, mukhang hindi ka pa ready. Or, nagmamangmangal lang po kayo. Maraming salamat po. [01:16:20] Speaker 1: The remarks of the gentleman are noted. Attorney Kapunan, your witness. [01:16:25] Speaker 2: Madam Witness, whether it is a return of investment, which now is becoming clear, that it is not. Because, because yung 2 million na yan, hindi ma-reconcile sa 40-something thousand lang na invest niya. Correct? It is a return of investment, or a return on investment, which means she invested as either creditor, nagpahiram, or shareholder siya, or ito ay bayad sa utang, sa kanya, kung nagpa-utang siya, or declared as dividend. Whether, regardless of the characterization, it is income, correct? [01:17:24] Speaker 1: Ask and answer, Your Honor. [01:17:26] Speaker 2: I haven't heard your answer yet. [01:17:27] Speaker 1: Not yet. Kindly answer, Attorney Suzette. [01:17:30] Suzette: I answered yes, Your Honor. So, it is income. [01:17:33] Speaker 1: With the permission of Attorney Lornas, Senator Judge Bam wishes to make, I mean, what is your pleasure, sir? [01:17:41] Speaker 7: Just to clarify lang, two quick questions only, just to add to this. So, Attorney Suzette, iba-iba kasi yung numero dito, no? I mean, iba-iba yung pumapasok na monthly. Ano yung computation para maabot natin yung perang pumapasok kay Vice President Sarah, number one? Number two, are you saying in 2026 wala na siyang natanggap? Tumigil in 2025? [01:18:07] Suzette: With respect to 2026 wala na natanggap. The data that I requested is for 2022 to 2025. [01:18:16] Speaker 7: No, iba yung data that you requested. Are you confirming that she did not receive any more money from GenCorp this year? [01:18:22] Suzette: I cannot confirm if there is. [01:18:25] Speaker 7: So, you cannot confirm whether the Vice President received any money from GenCorp in 2026? You were the... [01:18:32] Suzette: No, po. I am not part of the accounting department, sir. [01:18:35] Speaker 7: Okay, sige. Second question, ano yung formula to get these figures? [01:18:41] Suzette: Also, the formula. I do not have any participation in the computation, so I do not know. [01:18:47] Speaker 7: Pumunta ka dito with these numbers. Di mo alam kung paano nakuha yung mga numero. [01:18:50] Suzette: I requested for data extraction for 2022 to 2025. [01:18:56] Speaker 1: Okay. Your witness, attorney Lorna. [01:19:06] Speaker 2: Madam Witness. Regardless of the amount, Madam Witness, it could be 43,000, it could be 2 million, it could be more or it could be less. It still is income. Correct? Correct. I already answered yes, your honor. Okay. And as income, it should be declared. Correct? Yes. Okay. And this is income which is coming from a business. Correct? Yes. Yes. Yes. And of course, as a lawyer, you know that under the Constitution, the Vice President cannot receive any other income, no matter how big or small. She cannot receive any other income or have any business interest, personal pecuniary interest in any other corporation. It is a clear prohibition in the Constitution. You agree? [01:20:24] Speaker 4: Your honor, compound, misleading, calls for a conclusion. [01:20:31] Speaker 1: Attorney Suzette, only if you know. You may answer only if you know. If you don't, then you may say so as well. [01:20:39] Suzette: I prefer not to answer, your honor. [01:20:44] Speaker 2: You prefer not to answer? [01:20:46] Suzette: You are here. [01:20:46] Speaker 1: I may yung you prefer not to answer so you don't know, Attorney Suzette. [01:20:50] Suzette: I don't know your honor. [01:20:57] Speaker 1: You've made your point, Attorney Lorna. I don't even know what the question is. [01:21:03] Speaker 2: Did you prefer not to answer? Why? Why do you prefer not to answer when you're here? Precisely for the purpose of clarifying the situation. Is the vice president in violation of the Constitution by not declaring income which she received from sources other than her salary? It's a clear question. Why can you not answer that? [01:21:32] Speaker 1: Attorney Lorna, she changed her response to I don't know. You can repeat it again, Attorney Suzette. Your honor, however, please allow me to speak. [01:21:41] Speaker 4: Your honor, again, our witnesses here are entitled to rights. One of those rights is not to be badgered by questions. Only this impeachment court will resolve in the final decision it will make. Because what Attorney Kapunan is asking the witnesses, isn't this a constitutional violation? But at the start of this hearing, we are all aware as lawyers, attorney, that only the respective senator judges can make that final determination. We ask, your honor, that this is clearly already badgering the witness as attorney Lorna Kapunan, with all respect, knows what she is doing, your honor. May we move on. [01:22:18] Speaker 2: I also know, your honor, what counsel is doing. Counsel is manifesting that I'm badgering. I may have a loud voice, your honor, but this is already my tame voice. It could be louder. In fact, this is my kind voice when I ask the witness, your honor, if she knows. Because she should know. Fifteen years in the practice of law, you do not know what should not be declared and what should be declared as a public officer. You do not know that a public officer cannot receive income apart from her legitimate salary from any other business or exercise of any profession. And to answer, your honor, that she prefers not to answer, I think is a violation of her oath as a lawyer. And that's why I feel agitated, your honor. It's a violation of her oath of office that she will say, I do not want, I prefer not to answer. As an officer of the court, especially a highest impeachment court. To say that, your honor, I think that should be, that should not be accepted as an answer, your honor. I am badgering, your honor. I have the right to badger. We have the right to badger a witness who does not want to answer a question that should be answered. [01:23:42] Speaker 1: Forgive me, counsel, even if she refused to answer, no counsel has the right to badger the witness still, although you can be frustrated or disappointed. However, the witness already answered that she does not know after the court reminded her that she cannot refuse to answer the question. And she already changed her answer and said she does not know. You have made your point, counsel. You have spread into the records your theory. I'll move on to your next point, attorney Lorna. [01:24:18] Speaker 2: Let us now go to Metro. First of all, there seems to be, have you studied the corporate directors? Of GenCorp? Yes, your honor. Okay. And you're saying that the previous owners of, the predecessors of GenCorp, I would have shown it in a slide, but in the interest of time, the predecessor companies of GenCorp are no longer in existence. They are dissolved, correct? On the process of dissolution, your honor. Okay. But the shareholders of those companies, also, based on records, and you can verify, are interlocking the shareholders of the dissolved, or in the process of dissolving company, or in the process of dissolution, are interlocked shareholders, or directors, with GenCorp. Some, some of them, some of them. [01:25:31] Speaker 4: Objection, your honor, lax basis. May we know when? [01:25:34] Speaker 1: She already answered, your honor. Already answered, counsel. She said some. There are interlocks. Kindly move on, attorney Lorna. She already answered. [01:25:44] Speaker 2: And in this interlocks, there is a family name that appears, correct? Very, as a dominant shareholder, the name of JTC, or JTC Corporation, or the name of the person, Jaime Cruz, correct? Correct, your honor. As a corporate counsel, as in-house counsel of Mr. Jaime Cruz, do you know, if you know, if the vice president knows this Jaime T. Cruz? [01:26:26] Speaker 4: Misleading, your honor. There is no prior testimony that the witness stated that she is the counsel of Jaime T. Cruz himself. [01:26:36] Speaker 2: She's the counsel of GenCorp. [01:26:39] Speaker 4: We know there's a separate. [01:26:42] Speaker 2: She answered, yeah. [01:26:43] Speaker 1: Although, although, although, although, indeed, nothing has been mentioned about it, the witness, indeed, admitted earlier that she's the in-house counsel of other corporations, and that the incorporator of those other corporations is Jaime T. Cruz, as well. So, with your indulgence, attorney Justine, I'll allow it. Witness may answer. [01:27:10] Speaker 4: Yes, your honor. But I only ask that attorney Capunan, with all your respect, lay the basis. [01:27:15] Speaker 1: Yes, kindly answer, attorney Suzette. Jaime T. Cruz is a common shareholder in the defunct, or corporations that are in the process of dissolution, which used to own, which used to own, rather, the Jollibee franchises bought by GenCorp later on. [01:27:39] Suzette: Yes, your honor. [01:27:39] Speaker 1: And GenCorp's principal shareholder is also Jaime Cruz. [01:27:44] Suzette: Let me verify, your honor. It's JTC Group of Companies, your honor. [01:28:08] Speaker 1: JTC Group of Companies, which stands for, I guess, Jaime T. Cruz, correct? That's a holding company. [01:28:16] Suzette: Yes, your honor. [01:28:17] Speaker 1: So, it's the holding company that's the biggest shareholder of GenCorp, which, in turn, is owned by Jaime T. Cruz, I suppose. Your honor. As the acronym suggests. [01:28:27] Speaker 4: Your honor, pardon. Yes, I will have to invoke this court's own ruling, dated November 5, 2026, where it excluded documents from the offer pertaining to JTC Group of Companies and Pikimong, Pikimong. What am I trying to say, your honor? The subject matter being discussed now has already been excluded by this honorable court, your honor. [01:28:50] Speaker 1: We are not asking for additional documents, counsel, just simply correlating this matter to GenCorp. This does not in any way pertain to the respondents' liability under any of the articles, but just to complete the story in relation to GenCorp. [01:29:10] Speaker 4: We submit and we understand your honor. [01:29:12] Speaker 1: So, your predecessor companies, Jaime T. Cruz, GenCorp, now its own principally biggest shareholder, JTC, correct? [01:29:20] Suzette: Yes, your honor. [01:29:21] Speaker 1: Okay. Move on, counsel. Your witness, counsel. [01:29:24] Speaker 2: Madam Witness, this Jaime T. Cruz, if you know, does the vice president know Jaime T. Cruz? [01:29:38] Suzette: I cannot speak for the vice president, but they are both stockholders in one corporation. [01:29:48] Speaker 2: So, they are both stockholders in one corporation. And what corporation is that? The Metro City Chow Foods. So, in Metro City Chow King, Jaime T. Cruz and vice president Sara are both shareholders. Correct? Yes, ma'am. [01:30:10] Speaker ?: Correct? [01:30:10] Speaker 2: Yes, ma'am. Okay. And in Metro Chow, she owns 20% and Jaime T. Cruz owns majority. Majority. Majority. Majority. Okay. We now go to GenCorp. In GenCorp, Jaime T. Cruz owns shares, but for some reason, the vice president of the vice president president's name does not appear in the GIS as a shareholder, but it appears in her Sal-en. I will propose to you now a reason. Apologies, Your Honor. [01:30:54] Speaker ?: Apologies, Your Honor. [01:30:54] Speaker 2: I will have to object because it would now seem that the council is testifying, not asking [01:31:08] Speaker 4: a question. I will ask a question. [01:31:10] Speaker 1: I will ask a question. Barring the basis laid by the attorney's opponent for a question, the question is simply asking [01:31:16] Speaker ?: the witness to read a portion of the report. [01:31:16] Speaker 1: Then I ask respectfully that she go directly to that point. Council is directed. [01:31:18] Speaker ?: Okay. [01:31:18] Speaker 1: Which I was saying, Your Honor, if the attorney can now go to page 22 of the report, and if [01:31:24] Speaker 2: it's available, can we flash page 22 of the forensic report? Page 22 of the report. And if it's available, can we flash page 22 of the forensic report? Is that okay? Earlier, you said that both the Vice President and Jaime T. Cruz have interest in Metro. Yes, ma'am. But in Gencor, it is only Jaime T. Cruz that has interest. And yet, in the GIS, General Information Sheet, and yet the Vice President declared in her salen that she is a shareholder. I point your attention now, and if you could read for the record, what is stated here amongst the forensic findings of expert witness, Attorney Cabrera. Would you like to read it, or would you like me to read it? Ako na lang. Okay. May I point to the Court, Your Honor, to the last paragraph. In page 22, it says, It is possible, and this is Attorney Cabrera speaking, it is possible, in my professional opinion, that the reason why the GIS of Gencor did not disclose the respondent a stockholder is to avoid a documented conflict of interest issue, i.e., the City of Davao, dealing with a corporation owned by a family member, which in this case is a previous mayor and current vice president. Note that a conflict of interest blatantly violates bidding rules. In respondent's non-disclosure of her stockholdings in the GIS of Gencor, notwithstanding her voluntary declaration of business interest in her salen, may feign an appearance of legitimacy that enables Gencor to participate in public bidding processes in Davao City. In fact, in the recent testimony of current mayor, Sebastián Duterte, Gencor secured 19 government contracts with the city of Davao, which her said brother, Mayor Sebastián Duterte, serving as head of the procurement entity, or HOPE. Finally, if I may continue, based on our review of the GIS of Gencor, we also found that it was JTC group of companies that was indicated as Gencor's ultimate beneficial owner. This is not compliant with SAC memorandum, beneficial ownership disclosure framework, which requires disclosure of the identity of the natural person who ultimately owns controls or exercises effective control over reporting entity. Okay, my point, my question to you, Madam Witness, is, you confirmed earlier on direct examination that Gencor has secured, has government contracts with the city of Davao, correct? [01:35:48] Suzette: Yes, ma'am. [01:35:49] Speaker 2: And 19 government contracts, not only with the city of Davao, but with PhilHealth? [01:35:56] Suzette: Yes, ma'am. [01:35:56] Speaker 2: Okay, incidentally, you are connected with PhilHealth Davao? Until 2019 only. Until 2019. This, but you joined, when did you join Gencor? 2022. So, how long were you in PhilHealth? Five years from 2014. So, you were in PhilHealth for five years, and then you went to Gencor? Okay. Not immediately. Not immediately, you had a two-year gap, but you went to Gencor, and when you were in Gencor, although no longer in PhilHealth, Gencor was able to get contracts for PhilHealth, correct? From PhilHealth? Yes. Yes. Isn't that a conflict of interest? [01:36:46] Suzette: No. [01:36:47] Speaker 2: Why? Why? [01:36:51] Suzette: There's no conflict of interest between Gencor and PhilHealth, ma'am. [01:36:55] Speaker 2: But you were an employee of PhilHealth, and therefore, could directly or indirectly influence your friends in PhilHealth to give the contract to Gencor. I can see you're smiling. You agree? I do not agree. That is an assumption, ma'am. Okay. Okay. [01:37:12] Speaker ?: Okay. [01:37:12] Speaker 2: What about securing 19 government contracts with the city of Davao? If the Vice President Sara Duterte were to appear in the GIS of Gencor as a shareholder, would Gencor be able to get 19 government contracts? Do not agree with the city of the city of India, without it appearing that there is a conflict of interest because the city of Davao is headed by her brother, who also, Basté, who also is the head of the procuring entity. Would that be the reason, ma'am witness? Would that be the reason, ma'am witness, ma'am witness, ma'am witness, would that be the reason why Gencor, why the name of the Vice President is not in the GIS, so that there would be no conflict of interest situation between Gencor and the city of Davao headed by her brother, ma'am? [01:38:25] Speaker 4: Apologies, your honor. Apologies, your honor. Objection. It is speculative, your honor. [01:38:29] Speaker 1: Attorney Lorna, I would love to sustain the objection. Either reform or move on to your next point, attorney Lorna. [01:38:38] Speaker ?: We will move on again. [01:38:39] Speaker 2: Thank you. The concept of beneficial ownership, madam witness. [01:38:41] Speaker ?: Yes, ma'am. [01:38:42] Speaker 1: You're familiar? [01:38:43] Speaker 2: Yes, ma'am. Can you enlighten us again? What is beneficial ownership? Beneficial owner is a natural person, ma'am, who ultimately controls or directs the decision of a certain corporation. So, a beneficial owner is a natural person. [01:38:52] Speaker ?: Yes, ma'am. [01:38:52] Speaker 2: Yes, ma'am. Ta-o, hindi company. Correct, ma'am. So, when, and it is here in the forensic report. [01:38:58] Suzette: When JTC group of companies was indicated by JTC. [01:38:59] Speaker ?: Yes, ma'am. [01:38:59] Suzette: Yes, ma'am. So, when, and it is here in the forensic report. When JTC group of companies was indicated by JTC as the beneficial owner of Gen Core, and that should be. [01:39:06] Speaker 2: There is a, you affirm. That's a good question. Yes, ma'am. So, what is the beneficial owner of Gen Core? Yes, ma'am. [01:39:11] Suzette: So, what is the beneficial owner of Gen Core? [01:39:12] Speaker 2: Yes, ma'am. So, what is the beneficial owner of Gen Core? [01:39:14] Suzette: Yes, ma'am. [01:39:15] Speaker 2: So, what is the beneficial owner of Gen Core? Yes, ma'am. So, what is the beneficial owner of Gen Core? Yes, ma'am. So, what is the beneficial owner of Gen Core? Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. So, ma'am. So, when, and it is here in the forensic report. Was indicated by JTC as the beneficial owner of Gen Core, and that should be. There is a, you affirm, that submissions to the SEC should include beneficial ownership. You can confirm that? Yes, ma'am. And in the, in the, in the case of Gen Core, Gen Core listed, not a natural person. Gen Core listed in the GIS that there is a beneficial owner of per, of certain percentage. Apart from JTC, the person, JTC, the company, was listed as a beneficial owner of shares. When you and I know that only natural persons can be declared as beneficial owners. [01:40:26] Suzette: I confirm the mistake in the beneficial ownership declaration of the GIS of Gen Core. [01:40:32] Speaker 2: So, there is a mistake. Thank you for that affirmation, confirmation. So, there is a mistake in the submission of Gen Core, declaring JTC Corp as a beneficial owner. That is a mistake. Yes, ma'am. It should be a natural person, correct? Yes, ma'am. And who, in your opinion, should that, is that natural person? [01:40:57] Suzette: For now, I do not know because I do not have the records of JTC group of companies, ma'am. [01:41:03] Speaker 2: But based on this forensic report, based on latest submissions, it is the company, JTC, that's beneficial owner. But you said it is a wrong submission to the SEC. Yes, ma'am. [01:41:20] Suzette: Yes, ma'am. I admit that it is a mistake. Okay. [01:41:23] Speaker 2: Was there any, you being the in-house counsel, did you make any advice to the corporate secretary to correct that mistake? To amend, yes, ma'am. To amend. You did? Not yet. Not yet. But the GIS is as of December, in December 2025. We are already in November 2026. You have not yet brought to the attention of the company where you are sole lawyers, sole counsel to correct the statement on beneficial ownership. Not yet. [01:42:07] Suzette: I have already advised them, but the amendment has not yet been done. [01:42:13] Speaker 2: The beneficial owner, the beneficial owner of, based on this forensic report, the beneficial owner of those shares should be reflected as Vice President Sara in the GIS. If we were to reconcile her admission in the SAL-N, that she is shareholder, then the correction should be, agree or not agree with me, if she declared it, then in the SAL-N, that she is shareholder, then the correction should be, agree or not agree with me, if she declared it, then in the SAL-N, that she is shareholder, then the correction should be, agree or not agree with me. If she declared it, then in the GIS. If she declared it, then in the SAL-N, then it should be declared also in the GIS. Because she said there is a mistake on beneficial ownership, that she be declared in the GIS as the beneficial owner of those shares wrongly declared as belonging to JTC Corp. Do you agree? [01:43:19] Speaker 1: Objection, Your Honor. Before you answer, Attorney Suzette. Yes, Attorney Justin. [01:43:23] Speaker 4: With all your respect, Miss Leading, Your Honor, I already asked this question directly during my direct examination to the witness, whether the Vice President has any beneficial ownership, the categorical answer was no. Second, Your Honor, the witness has repeatedly insisted that the Vice President is not a stockholder of JTC Corp Industries, Inc. So, there is no only no basis, but if you insist that point, that would be misleading, Your Honor, with all your respect. [01:43:54] Speaker 1: So, Attorney Lorna, I will have to agree with Attorney Justin. Your Honor, please. It's a big leap. [01:43:59] Speaker 2: No, Your Honor, please. Yes. This is not a speculation, Your Honor. This is in line with her answer to an earlier question that declaring JTC Corp as the beneficial owner is wrong. It's a wrong declaration because a company cannot be a beneficial owner. And she did say in her answer that she already told the Gen Corp to rectify that mistake. [01:44:36] Speaker 1: Yes, Counsel. [01:44:37] Speaker 2: Which they did not. Yes, Counsel. So, my next question was... [01:44:40] Speaker 1: But it's a big leap, Counsel. To say that JTC is owned by the Vice President or that JTC should be replaced by the name of the Vice President, especially given the fact that the court precisely did not allow the subpoenas to be issued to documents pertaining to JTC because the GIS attached to the request did not contain the name of the Vice President. Your Honor, please. So, what the Chair is saying is that it's a big leap. [01:45:13] Speaker 2: Yes, Your Honor, it is. [01:45:14] Speaker 1: To say that JTC Corp is the Vice President. In fact... [01:45:21] Speaker 2: No, Your Honor, if I may. [01:45:23] Speaker 1: Yes, Attorney Lorna. [01:45:24] Speaker 2: If I may. Yes, Your Honor. If that were my... If that was what I was thinking, it is indeed a big leap. But that's not what I meant, Your Honor. It has no relation to VP owning shares in JTC. It is related to who owns... Who is the beneficial owner, if it is not JTC Corp, who is the beneficial owner of that portion of shares of JTC Corp, if it is not owned by JTC. You said it is wrongly declared in the name of JTC. Then if she knows, she's in-house. Who then should be the beneficial owner of the shares in the... in the... uh... Gen Corp. Not JTC. [01:46:19] Speaker 1: Your Honor. As in-house counsel... As in-house counsel, Attorney Suzette. Allow me, um, counsels. As in-house counsel, Attorney Suzette. Tama naman po, na dapat ilagay sangayon sa pinaka-latest na rules ng SEC. Hindi po ba yung totoong may-ari at hindi yung kumpanya lamang? Um... [01:46:37] Suzette: Yes, Your Honor. [01:46:38] Speaker 1: Sabi niyo po, um... Tama naman yun. Mali yung submission. So, if you know... Sino po ang nagmamay-ari nung shares na nakapangalan sa JTC na principal shareholder ng Gen Corp? If you will correct it, as you have advised to correct it, how would it be corrected if you know? [01:47:02] Suzette: It will be corrected by looking at the records of JTC group of companies, Your Honor, to see kung sino yung stockholders of record nila. [01:47:13] Speaker 1: So, kailangan ilagay yung individual stockholders ng JTC at hindi JTC yung nakalagay doon. Yun yung correction na pinayo nyo. [01:47:22] Suzette: Yes, Your Honor. And not all the stockholders, pero kung sino lang po yung pasok doon sa beneficial owner. [01:47:30] Speaker 1: Nang Gen Corp. [01:47:32] Suzette: Nang JTC group of companies. [01:47:36] Speaker 1: Nang JTC group of companies na nagmamay-ari nga ng Gen Corp. [01:47:41] Suzette: Yes po. [01:47:42] Speaker 1: Tama po? [01:47:43] Speaker 2: Yes, Your Honor. [01:47:44] Speaker 1: Your witness, Attorney Lorna. [01:47:46] Speaker 2: Uh, Your Honor, please. I need to pee. [01:47:51] Speaker 1: May we have a... Um... There would have been a better way to say it, Attorney Lorna. Yeah, but um... Chair will call for a bathroom and for those who need it, a back break. Session will resume at around 3:30. Attorney Justin, ready? Trial is resumed. Um... You did not avail of the bathroom break, um, Attorney Suzette? [01:48:22] Suzette: I did, Your Honor. Okay. [01:48:24] Speaker 1: Good for you. Um... Attorney Lorna, your witness. Uh... [01:48:29] Speaker 2: Just a few more questions, if you love. Let us now go to Metro. Yes. Okay. And as regards Metro Chow, the defense counsel for the respondent asks, if the Vice President is a shareholder, correct? To extend the Vice President is in the GIS a shareholder to the extent of 20%, correct? [01:49:01] Speaker ?: Correct, ma'am. Okay. [01:49:03] Speaker 2: And on question of counsel for the respondent, you were asked if she was an active shareholder, and in connection with that, you were asked, does she belong to the Board of Directors? Yes, I was asked. Yes. And, uh, you were also asked, did she attend any meetings of the Board of Directors? And you answered, no. I answered, no. Okay. How many Board of Directors meetings are there in a year? [01:49:43] Suzette: GenCorp? GenCorp or Metro City? I'm sorry, of Metro. [01:49:51] Speaker 2: I attend around two. [01:49:52] Speaker ?: Around two? [01:49:53] Suzette: Yes, ma'am. [01:49:54] Speaker 2: You're saying that GenCorp has two Board of Directors meetings in a year? GenCorp? I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Metro. [01:50:08] Suzette: I attend around two. Uh, yes. [01:50:14] Speaker 2: But, but Metro does not only have two meetings a year, correct? Possible, ma'am. Because that would be a violation, as you know, of the revised Corporation Code, which requires companies to have at least four meetings. in other words, Madame Witness, when you said you have not seen the Vice President in any of the Board of Directors meetings, what you're saying is you have not seen her in the two meetings per year that you attend? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Yes, ma'am. Okay. You do not know if there are other meetings of the Board of Directors that she is there, but which meetings you don't attend, correct? That's possible. That's possible. That's possible. Yes. No. Compensation Committee. She is listed as a member of the Compensation Committee, correct? [01:51:14] Suzette: Yes, ma'am. [01:51:15] Speaker 2: And yet you said the Compensation Committee is not a bylaw committee. It's not in the bylaws, ma'am, yes. Okay. You only created Compensation Committee to be compliant with bank regulations. [01:51:32] Suzette: Yes, ma'am. [01:51:33] Speaker 2: And in connection with that, you represented to the banks that there is a Compensation Committee and that the Vice President is a member of the Compensation Committee. Unfortunately so in the GIS. [01:51:52] Suzette: So that is a misrepresentation. Not a misrepresentation, but it is an error. [01:51:59] Speaker 2: It is an error. What is the difference between an error and a misrepresentation? [01:52:06] Suzette: It is an honest mistake, ma'am, on the accounting staff that prepared the GIS. And there is no intention to misrepresent that the Vice President is a member of the Compensation Committee. [01:52:19] Speaker 2: But she is listed as a member of the Compensation Committee. Yes. [01:52:24] Suzette: Correct. [01:52:25] Speaker 2: Now, meetings of shareholders, how many meetings per year does Metro have? [01:52:34] Suzette: As to the exact number of meetings? Annual meetings, yes. You're talking year to year to year. I'm sorry, I'm confused. [01:52:42] Speaker 2: In a year, how many shareholders meetings would Metro have? [01:52:49] Suzette: In a year, I do not know the exact number of meetings. And how many meetings have you attended? As I stated earlier, ma'am, two meetings, around two meetings per year. Shareholders, not board meetings, shareholders meetings. I do not attend shareholders meetings, ma'am. [01:53:09] Speaker 2: You do not attend shareholders meetings, just board meetings. Yes, ma'am. So, you do not know if the Vice President attends shareholders meetings because you don't attend shareholders meetings, correct? Yes, ma'am. Okay. As regards compensation from the board, do you know if the Vice President as director of Metro receives compensation per dime, or any other emolument from Metro? [01:53:47] Suzette: Based on the general information sheet, ma'am, there are no compensation to any director. To any of the directors. [01:53:58] Speaker 2: Do you know a certain Chinese Gen B Corp owned by Jaime Cruz? Come again, ma'am. Okay. Do you know any company called Chinese Gen B Corp owned by Jaime Cruz? Chinese Gen B Corp. [01:54:22] Suzette: It's not in my records now, but it's familiar. Okay. [01:54:36] Speaker 2: Do you know that, are you in house for this company? Chinese Gen B Corp? No, ma'am. No, ma'am. You're not in house. No, ma'am. Do you know that it is owned by Jaime Cruz together with Mayor Baste, if you know? No, I cannot confirm. [01:54:52] Speaker 4: Your Honor, before this line of questioning continues, with all your respect, of course, to attorney, apart from the Duterte family name, may we inquire the relevance of this line of questioning? Because siblings don't share incomes and they're not required to declare. [01:55:17] Speaker 1: The chair will not rule anymore if you will move on. I am moving on, Your Honor. Move on, Attorney Lorna. [01:55:21] Speaker 2: No. [01:55:22] Speaker 1: I am moving on, Your Honor. Move on, Attorney Lorna. [01:55:24] Speaker 2: No. [01:55:25] Speaker ?: I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. [01:55:55] Speaker 2: I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. [01:56:10] Speaker ?: I am moving on, Your Honor. [01:56:11] Speaker 2: I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. [01:56:39] Speaker ?: I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. [01:56:56] Suzette: I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. [01:57:12] Speaker ?: I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. [01:57:14] Speaker 2: I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. [01:57:16] Speaker ?: I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. [01:57:41] Suzette: I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. [01:57:44] Speaker 2: I am moving on, Your Honor. [01:57:45] Suzette: I am moving on, Your Honor. [01:57:46] Speaker 2: I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. [01:58:07] Speaker 4: I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. [01:58:11] Speaker 2: I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. [01:58:13] Speaker 4: I am moving on, Your Honor. [01:58:14] Speaker 2: I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. [01:58:55] Speaker 4: I am moving on, Your Honor. [01:58:56] Speaker 2: I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. [01:58:59] Speaker 4: I am moving on, Your Honor. [01:59:00] Speaker 2: I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. [01:59:02] Speaker 4: I am moving on, Your Honor. [01:59:03] Speaker 2: I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. [01:59:12] Suzette: I am moving on, Your Honor. [01:59:13] Speaker ?: I am moving on, Your Honor. [01:59:14] Suzette: I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. [01:59:29] Speaker 2: I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. [01:59:36] Speaker ?: I am moving on, Your Honor. [01:59:37] Speaker 2: I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. [01:59:55] Speaker ?: I am moving on, Your Honor. [01:59:56] Speaker 2: I am moving on, Your Honor. [01:59:57] Suzette: I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. [02:00:04] Speaker ?: I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. [02:00:18] Speaker 2: I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. [02:00:30] Speaker ?: I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. [02:00:34] Speaker 2: I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. [02:01:06] Speaker ?: I am moving on, Your Honor. [02:01:07] Suzette: I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. [02:01:17] Speaker ?: I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. [02:01:20] Suzette: I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. [02:01:35] Speaker 2: I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. [02:01:52] Speaker ?: I am moving on, Your Honor. [02:01:53] Speaker 2: I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. [02:01:56] Speaker ?: I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. [02:02:07] Suzette: I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. [02:02:19] Speaker 2: I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. [02:02:29] Speaker ?: I am moving on, Your Honor. [02:02:30] Speaker 2: I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. [02:02:32] Speaker ?: I am moving on, Your Honor. [02:02:33] Speaker 2: I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. [02:02:35] Speaker ?: I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. I am moving on, Your Honor. We'll see you next time.