Sison, Diokno clash after forensic financial analyst concludes testimony

[0:00] Good afternoon, Your Honor. [0:00] What is your pleasure, ma'am? [0:02] Thank you for acknowledging the defense. [0:06] Just to be honest, it felt like for the last four, five hours that we're not here. [0:13] Even that the witness was given extensive platform and opportunity to give his unbridled and erroneous conclusions of law and fact. [0:28] But nonetheless, Your Honor, I have a few manifestations. [0:33] We've heard... [0:35] Before the good counsel proceeds, Your Honor, I would move to strike the statement erroneous. [0:42] Again, that would be a conclusion of law and totally out of order. [0:46] It's up to the Honorable Court to decide whether the opinion of Attorney Cabrera is acceptable or not. [0:53] And it's not in our place, whether I'm for the prosecution or for the defense. [0:58] To make such irresponsible statements. [1:01] I move to strike, Your Honor. [1:02] Well, I object. [1:04] I object to that motion, Your Honor. [1:07] In fact, it came from the gentleman himself. [1:09] The witness gave an opinion that itself is proof that the witness only gave conclusions and not facts, Your Honor. [1:18] Anyway, Your Honor, I think... [1:20] Attorney Schiller, allow the court to rule. [1:22] Yes, Your Honor. [1:22] Allow the court to rule. [1:23] Let it remain in the record, Honorable Chell. [1:27] That is how the prosecution clearly disagrees with the opinion of the expert from their point of view. [1:35] It is... [1:35] She described it from their perspective and not necessarily the perspective of the court nor the prosecution. [1:41] And it is not per se... [1:43] It is not per se strikable from the point of view of the court. [1:48] May I make a counter-manifestation, Your Honor? [1:51] Yes, Honorable Jopno. [1:52] That in the view of the prosecution, the statement of the defense that the opinion is erroneous is totally out of place and has no meaning in this court. [2:05] Thank you. [2:06] That is noted. [2:07] Attorney Schiller, you may proceed. [2:09] Yes, Your Honor. [2:10] We've heard over the last four or five hours of interpolations and interjections from the members, Honorable Members of this court, [2:19] the term piercing of the corporate veil. [2:22] We have here, Kukan International Corporation v. Reyes, and I believe this is a matter of mandatory judicial notice for this court, [2:30] where the court said, [2:31] To disregard the separate juridical personality of a corporation, the wrongdoing must be established clearly and convincingly. [2:43] It cannot be presumed. [2:45] Otherwise, an injustice that was never unintended may result from an erroneous application. [2:54] And it bears reiterating that piercing the veil of corporate fiction is frowned upon. [3:01] Again, and these are the words of the Supreme Court in Kukan International Corporation v. Reyes, [3:07] so that we don't mislead the public na nanonood sa atin. [3:11] Tutal, naglaan tayo ng napakahabang panahon at oras para pag-usapan ng mga korporasyon na ito, [3:18] ang opinion ng witness na binigyan ng mahigit limang oras para magbigay ng kanyang mga konklusyon [3:26] at ng kanyang mga opinion, mas maganda na maunawaan at malaman ang ating mga kababayan kung ano ba ang sabi ng Korte Suprema dito. [3:39] Ito ang sabi ng Korte Suprema. [3:41] It cannot be presumed. [3:45] To disregard the separate juridical personality of a corporation, [3:50] the wrongdoing must be established clearly and convincingly. [3:55] Again, it cannot be presumed. [3:58] Now, that witness has answered over time and repeatedly that unang-una sa lahat, [4:05] wala siyang sapat na oras. [4:07] Pangalawa, hindi niya hawak ang lahat ng dokumento to form sufficient basis or ng kompletong opinion. [4:16] Kaya hindi ko alam kung saan ang galing ang kanyang mga opinion na ipinalaganap niya buong maghapon [4:21] sa bulwagang ito at sa harap ng sambayan ng Pilipino. [4:25] Anyway, Your Honor, that's my first manifestation. [4:28] Of course, I presume that the prosecution has a comment to my manifestation. [4:35] Yes, if I may be heard, if Your Honors, please. [4:37] I was hoping otherwise, but I doubt that. [4:40] Sorry, Your Honor. [4:40] The Honorable Jokno is recognized. [4:42] I believe these statements by the Defense Counsel are really out of place. [4:47] That's meant for a closing argument, perhaps, but not for this time before this court. [4:53] And again, if I may bring to the attention of the court other Supreme Court decisions, [4:57] which I believe hold otherwise compared to what the Good Counsel has been trying to push before this Honorable Court. [5:07] Rodrigo Villanueva versus People, GR No. 218652, February 23, 2022. [5:15] Piercing of corporate veil is allowed if juridical entities are used as vehicles to commit illegal acts. [5:22] I quote, since accused, Villanueva used to set companies as means or vehicles for the circumvention of statutes, [5:31] in this case governing procurement of government supplies, etc., [5:35] such acts should not be countenanced, and the court pierced the corporate veil. [5:40] You have another case, Concept Builders versus NLRC, GR No. 108734, 29 May 1996. [5:48] Again, to the same effect. [5:51] And there's another case, if Your Honor, please, to lead the construction corporation employees association [5:57] versus to lead the construction corporation, where the court said that although mere ownership [6:03] by a single stockholder or by another corporation is not of itself sufficient ground [6:09] for disregarding the separate corporate personality, [6:12] this can be disregarded if it is shown that the corporation is used in a fraudulent scheme. [6:22] Your Honor, I think I need to respond to that manifestation, [6:28] just so we do not mislead the public again with respect to these points of law, Your Honor. [6:34] I think with the points or the portions of the decisions stated by or mentioned by the gentleman [6:42] in response to what I had stated earlier, are actually not inconsistent with the principle of law [6:51] that I had stated earlier. [6:53] Again, I will repeat, to disregard the separate juridical personality of a corporation, [6:59] the wrongdoing must be established clearly and convincingly. [7:05] It cannot be presumed. [7:07] Now, the first case that was recited by the gentleman stated that since the accused committed, [7:13] et cetera, et cetera, actually supports the decision that I just cited. [7:20] It means that if there was already a finding by the court that the accused had indeed committed certain things, [7:27] then the same had already gone through trial, [7:29] which also supports that the presumption had been or that the wrongdoing cannot be presumed, Your Honor, [7:39] and therefore must be proved. [7:41] And the second and third cases that he had cited, [7:45] which according to him also are of the same point, [7:50] actually are not inconsistent with this principle, Your Honor. [7:55] It cannot be presumed. [7:56] The wrongdoing cannot be presumed. [7:58] It has to be clearly and convincingly established. [8:02] Just one sentence. [8:04] Allow the chair to finish this. [8:06] Let's finish this, Honorable Joaquin, with your indulgence. [8:09] The court instructed, the presiding officers instructed the clerk of court [8:14] to take note of the cases cited by both parties. [8:19] We shall reproduce the same and furnish all the senator judges [8:23] through their official emails with a copy of the three cases mentioned by the Honorable Joaquin [8:28] and the case cited by Attorney Sheila for their information and reference. [8:36] As you stated, as Attorney Sheila stated, this is a decision of the court, [8:42] and the court can take judicial notice of it, sans any further arguments from the councils on this matter. [8:48] Let the senator judges evaluate them on its face [8:51] and based on their reading and appreciation of the actual cases cited by both parties. [8:57] Move on to your next manifestation, Attorney Sheila, please. [8:59] Your Honor, before we get to the second manifestation, may I just make a brief statement? [9:03] I think it should be clear in the record. [9:04] You said one sentence. [9:05] Okay. [9:05] Yes, Your Honor. [9:07] Insofar as clear and convincing evidence is concerned, assuming that good counsel is correct, [9:13] what is clear and convincing? [9:15] What did we have seen earlier? [9:18] That 69% of one of the companies was undeclared and unreported income, [9:25] and 51% of the other company, Metro City Crown, was also undeclared and unreported. [9:31] So what kind of clear and convincing evidence do we need if that is not yet clear and convincing in itself? [9:37] Oh, forgive me, Your Honor. [9:39] I thought the gentleman had actually... [9:40] That's exactly my problem, Honorable Jokno. [9:43] This will not stop. [9:44] Attorney Sheila, let that be the last... [9:46] I'm sorry, Your Honor, but... [9:47] Statement on this matter. [9:49] But this involves the right of the respondent, because forgive me, [9:53] I just heard just a few minutes ago that the gentleman said that this is not yet the time [9:57] for any closing statement, Your Honor. [10:00] And he may have forgotten that the respondent has not yet even begun presenting its evidence, [10:06] Your Honor. [10:07] So to conclude or to make that conclusion, that's out of order. [10:13] Well, to be fair, let that remain in the record, too. [10:15] And he was given a better opportunity earlier, actually, through an interjection of a senator judge, [10:20] which he did not take advantage of. [10:22] Let that remain in the record as well for whatever it's worth. [10:25] Again, let that be the last statement on this matter on piercing the corporate veil. [10:32] Let that be the last statement on this matter. [10:32] Let that be the last statement on this matter. [10:33] Let that be the last statement on this matter. [10:33] Let that be the last statement on this matter. [10:34] Let that be the last statement on this matter. [10:35] Let that be the last statement on this matter. [10:36] Let that be the last statement on this matter. [10:37] Let that be the last statement on this matter. [10:38] Let that be the last statement on this matter.