Cayetano's line of questions that proved prosecution's point, according to Diokno | ABS-CBN News

Does that give us now the authority to get the bank accounts, the AMLA, and the BAR?Because whatever we do in the impeachment court is for impeachable officers.But the Sandigan Bayan, RTC, MTC, and the Supreme Court are also watching.So whatever rule we have here, that will influence then how we deal with barangay captains all the way to anyone who's not impeachable.

For unexplained wealth, Your Honor, I believe the ultimate facts must include the following.First, that the person involved amassed wealth.Second, that that wealth is manifestly disproportionate to that person's lawful income.So we need to see what his wealth is, and we need to compare.to his legitimate earnings.And that can be only determined by looking at the records that we are requesting from this Honorable Court.

No, but if you're just looking at the salary and his earnings, so I'll give you an example.I won't name the person so that no one will react.But he was a senator, I think, in 1987, an outstanding human being, and he was telling us, I bought this land in 1980 or 1970 for P50 ,000.I sold it in 1990, but in the SAL -N, it says the acquired cost.So I put in P50 ,000.So if you look at us, then he named some great, other great senators, etc. who were with him, congressmen and so on.

If you look, the senator is like this.All of us.Our SAL -N, maybe P5 ,000 ,000.But the P100 ,000 land we bought, maybe P5 ,000 ,000, P20 ,000 ,000, P30 ,000 ,000.So if one of those officials suddenly sold the property, and then place the money that came in.So let's say the 100 ,000 property was sold for 5 million.

but then, for example, he blew out the 500 ,000 in the family before December 31 of that year, his salary will increase by 4 .5 million.So if you just compare his income, his salary with that, that will not show you that he has ill -gotten wealth.So compared to when I alleged that his salary is 100 ,000, But why does he have a house like this and that?It's not in his sal -en.So I agree, let's follow the evidence.If the sal -en is much more than what you're making, that could spark your curiosity, your suspicion, and continue to investigate.

But do you make the conclusion now and file the impeachment case that since their salary is far from their income, therefore, it's ill -gotten.Without giving that person a way to explain before you subpoena every single document about their lives.

That's precisely why, Your Honor, they call it unexplained wealth.That's where we'll find out, in the documents.

No, I agree.They call it unexplained...Go ahead, sorry.I'm sorry, I'm the one...Please, please continue.

For example, in the example you gave, they appreciate the value of the land, then I would not call that unexplained.I would call that explained wealth.

Yes, but you're introducing a new concept now, unexplained wealth versus ill -gotten wealth.I agree with you.Unexplained wealth is that if you look at the salien and it doesn't match, there's unexplained wealth.That's why you ask them to explain it.And then if the explanation isn't good and you have evidence, then you can go against that person for ill -gotten wealth.But in certain cases, Parts here I saw some that I would consider.

without asking you evidence, but for example, the companies.It says here that the company is bankrupt.So if the company is bankrupt, it won't be able to contribute to its ill -gotten wealth, if there is any.So why are we getting all the documents about those companies?That's where the criticism of others comes in.Is this a phishing expedition?

Because if I had five companies, and they were all making money, and supposedly I only own 1 % of that company, but I'm getting half of that income, I would agree with you, isopina lahat yan.Tignan natin yung flow nyan, baka yan yung pumasok sakin.Pero lugi nga yung mga kumpanya.As an example, as an example, so that's my point.Is it enough in the view of the prosecution panel, just to allege, malaki yung salin mo, bigger than your monthly sweldo, both of us agree, it's unexplained.But is it ill -gotten, or do you need more allegations to show that it was ill -gotten?

Well, Your Honor, please, the decision whether wealth is unexplained or, as you said, ill -gotten, is really a decision that this Honorable Court will make based on the evidence.What we want is for the evidence to be laid out in front of you so that you can be the ones to say it.And to know that, we have to look at the statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth.We have to look at the lawful income reported in the ITRs.We have to look at the bank records in terms of kung ano yung pumasok at lumabas sa kanilang mga accounts.As far as the businesses are concerned, that has to do with the third subcharge under unexplained wealth, yung pong continuing to participate in business interests despite the clear

express prohibition provided in the Constitution.We want to know whether those businesses are operational, or are we really saying that what the Vice President is saying is true, that it is a business interest.

Yeah, I'm skipping because this is mostly questions on fishing expedition.I'll go to the defense after this, but can you tell us the difference between evidence and proof?In your layman's term or legal terms, or if you want to look it up.But how do we explain to people the difference between evidence and proof?

In a court proceeding, whether we're speaking of an impeachment court or a regular court, the judges look at the evidence.They may never be able to know the entire truth because what happened happened before.Essentially, a trial is really a reconstruction of something that happened before.So it may happen in some cases, that there is enough evidence to make conclusions as far as the judgment is concerned, even if the members of the court did not get to see the entire truth.Yes.What we want to avoid here in the Impeachment Court, is that we have evidence that cannot be shared with the magistrates here, so that their picture will be complete before you judge.

I don't think there's any question that all of us here One, do you have the evidence or are you fishing for the evidence?And that's a question not only for you but for everyone.single impeachment process, not only the umabot dito, because myself, Senator Subiri, Senator Chief Escudero, then later on Senator Villanueva, has been in the House many times during impeachments of presidents and chief justices.The reason I ask between evidence and proof is because if you have the evidence, you want the opportunity to bring it here, show the relevancy, connect it to the crime, admit it, so that if it's true, then we can convict.The opposite sides will either question, it's not admissible or admissible, but there's no relationship, etc.So what I'm saying is that if you're going to prove your case, with no evidence, except that if you get all of that, then the House of Representatives will be arbitrary on who they want to impeach.

Because almost any public official who's been there for a long time, you will see discrepancies in their SAL -N, because first of all, the acquisition cost is different, the current value is different, and the deadline of the impeachment is different.December 31, which after this, I'll ask the defense to answer, then I'll go into the AMLA, which is different from bank accounts.So if you're coming to the court with evidence already, but you're taking that subpoena to further prove your point, I don't think there'll be a question there.As Atty.Poa said earlier, if we know the contents of the BIR box, andbe used here, you already alleged it.

But if you don't know the content, are we fishing there if there's a tax evasion or not?I don't know the answer.I'm asking you the question.You can answer it in any way you're comfortable in answering.

If I may briefly narrate the procedure that the House had to undergo for the articles to reach this Honorable Court.When the complaints were filed before the House of Representatives, the Committee on Justice was tasked not with conducting a trial, not with ferreting out all the evidence, but simply determining whether there was probable cause to proceed with the case.So, we did not look for the completeness of the evidence because we were not in charge of that.When we made the determination that there was sufficient probable cause to proceed with that case, then, That is what we submitted in terms of the Articles of Impeachment that reached this Honorable Court.Now, of course, just like a preliminary investigation conducted by a prosecutor, he will only look at the evidence if there is a probable cause.Not all the evidence yet.

is before that prosecutor because wala pa pong trial.The presentation of evidence, even the subpoena or compulsion to present evidence will only happen when the trial takes place.And yung tinutukoy po ninyong phishing expedition, yun ay maaaring sabihin natin nangyari kung only if the party requesting the evidence or documents ay nagbaba kasakali lang, baka may makuha tayo dito.In our case, I have to disagree that there was any sort of fishing expedition because based on what the Committee on Justice and later the plenary of the Housewas sufficient, there was enough cause to proceed with the case.

I'll go to probable cause, but you said, maybe we'll get something here.You said not so.So what will we get if we grant all the subpoenas you're requesting?

The evidentiary facts, Your Honor, that we're not yet sure.We are basing the request for the bank records on the evidence and information provided by the Anti -Money Laundering Council which appears to show that there were billions of pesos that went through the accounts of the vice president during that period of time.

I take it out and put it in time deposit for one month, and one month later, it comes out with 2 % time deposit.It's not 1 million anymore.1 million in, 1 million out, 2 million.1 million in the time deposit, 3 million.When it comes out with 2%, 1 million, 2 pesos, 1 million, 2 ,000 pesos.It's now 4 million.

So it's not evidential, it's just speculation.Meaning, all I have to do is find someone with a bank account and give them a long enough period, and I will say that they have hundreds of millions or billions.

Precisely, Your Honor, that is why we want the bank records to be produced.Because, as you mentioned, the only reports submitted by the Anti -Money Laundering Council pertain to covert and suspicious transaction reports.They do not show us the exact balances that were contained in those bank accounts.And it is only the bank records that will provide that information.

Agree.And it's suspicion.When you say suspicion, that doesn't mean necessarily suspicion that it's attached to an AMLA crime.But it could be suspicious, meaning six months, no one is moving.Suddenly, every day now, it's moving.That's part of the definition of AMLA.

But if you cannot connect AMLA and the bank accounts, that's precisely what the defense and other people are saying.Aren't you fishing between the three?Fishing means you're not allowed to touch, so you're trying to get a fish, in this case, a very big fish, right?So if you say it's not a fishing expedition, you have evidence.But you want to prove that in court, and you need that to prove it, but you know what to prove already.

If we bring your Honor's logic to its conclusion, that would mean that the Committee on Justice would have to conduct a full -blown trial, get all the evidence at that level, so that we do not have to fish anymore when we get to this court, when that is not the contemplation of the procedure for impeachment under the Constitution.

I won't argue what the House— With the permission of the gentleman on the floor, Senator Gaetano— Last two questions.Thank you very much.