00:01and the strongest position to convince us that these are two different properties, Your Honor.
00:10Thank you for that opportunity.
00:12The statement, the admission of the witness himself, which we again, we have to take the witness's candor in answering
00:19our statements.
00:20Our witness stated that the property covered by the subject TCT is not the same as that one declared in
00:27the SAL-N.
00:28They presented witness to disprove that fact, and this witness clearly admitted that he could not say in absolute certainty,
00:36he's not certain that that property disclosed in the SAL-N is the same property declared in the TCT.
00:46The witness confirmed this twice.
00:49So since this is their witness that they presented to disprove our allegation, clearly they were not able to disprove
00:56it.
00:56And aside from his admissions, Your Honor, again, the glaring discrepancies, Your Honor, of the, for example, as we've mentioned
01:05already,
01:06the purchase price versus the acquisition cost, it's clear, again, I've already stated the provisions in the guidelines governing the
01:14filing of SAL-Ns,
01:17which states you should not include in the acquisition cost the taxes and the transfer fees.
01:22And it's clear that these statements from the defense that they should, they would, they could have been included is
01:30nothing more than speculation.
01:33There is no evidence that proves this at this point.
01:35Again, as we've stated, it's only the vice president who could state when she filled up the SAL-N and
01:42swore to it that when she indicated that amount,
01:46she included those transfer fees.
01:48Second, Your Honor, the date of acquisition, there's a glaring discrepancy, 2019 versus, sorry, 2013 versus 2018.
02:00So clearly, these are completely different properties.
02:04And as aptly pointed out by the presiding officer himself, even if you will include this fees, the amount will
02:12still not match the acquisition cost stated,
02:15which only leads to one logical conclusion.
02:19These are different properties, Your Honor.
02:21At kung ito ay magkaibang property, meron na po ba kayong naiisip or sa inyong pananaw, nasaan itong isang property
02:31na ito?
02:36It is for the vice president to know where this property is indicated.
02:41But what we're certain is that this property indicated in the TCT, she did not declare it,
02:49which is a clear violation of the law, of the constitution, which is an impeachable offense.
03:24Thank you very much.
03:26Variation or deviation from the rules that the council on deck should continue all throughout.
03:31But we're not objecting if the court...
03:34Your Honor, may I please be allowed to finish?
03:37No, but I'm just addressing...
03:38Council, I think you know...
03:39Attorney Sheila, kindly, kindly, kindly let the attorney to loss a finish and then we will recognize you.
03:45Thank you, Your Honor.
03:46So again, as I've stated, I'm not objecting if they're asking for an exemption from the rules.
03:53All that we're saying, if this will be allowed, moving forward, of course, we should be also allowed and given
04:00the same concession.
04:02That's all.
04:03Thank you, Your Honor.
04:03Attorney Sheila?
04:04Well, it doesn't seem that the council's not objecting.
04:07The fact that he took the microphone and said something about my taking the podium at this point is by
04:17itself an objection.
04:18But nonetheless, we'll proceed to also address the good Senator Villanueva's query and also in response to the lengthy pontification
04:29of, to borrow his words, of counsel for the prosecution.
04:34Now, they're saying that it's the respondent's burden to prove that these real property declared in Harshalen is not the
04:50same property registered with the city.
04:53That is not what we stated, Your Honor.
04:54Et cetera, et cetera.
04:56Well, to that effect...
04:56Kindly seek recognition before you speak, Attorney Sheila.
04:59I apologize.
04:59Let's allow Attorney Sheila to speak.
05:01Yes, Your Honor.
05:02I will also listen to Attorney Jay to loss when he speaks.
05:07Anyway, Your Honor, to continue.
05:09If that is the contention of the prosecution, and I note that they have already rested their case, they have,
05:16in fact, even submitted their formal offer of evidence,
05:21to which this court had already issued a ruling dated November 5, 2026, on the offer,
05:28then they should have presented, it's very easy for them to just present another set of tax declaration documents,
05:36need of absolute sales, registration documents of the property stated in the salen of the vice president to show that,
05:46indeed,
05:46that is a different property than the ones being identified by this witness or have been identified by this witness
05:56and of the witness yesterday.
05:57But they did not do that.
06:00So this theory really is just something.
06:02It's hair-splitting.
06:04We all know that this is the same property.
06:06Whatever documents, I know he will object, whatever documents or property that this witness and the witness yesterday have identified
06:19correspond to what the respondent had declared in the salen.
06:24But that's the big question.
06:27If the prosecution is confident enough that there is another property existing, not covered by the documents presented by the
06:37two defense witnesses,
06:38they did not present it now.
06:40Why?
06:41Because they know it's the same property.
06:44That's my response.
06:46You understand me?
06:48Both to the query of the good Senator Villanueva.
06:51And of the counsel for the prosecution.
06:52General, before we proceed there, maybe you need to respond first, please, with the permission.
06:56Again, again, again, Attorney Lozo, this is not a debate between the counsels.
07:00This is only a response to questions posed by Senator Judges.
