Ombudsman Morales testimony muddles rather than substantiates Prosecution claims of Corona dollar holdings

And the comedy of errors that is the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona continues as today’s session concludes. A long accounting made by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales of various funds movements between 82 bank accounts across several banks to the name of Chief Justice Renato Corona over a period beginning 2003 through 2011 revealed an anticlimactic bottom line: total funds moving into the Corona accounts over the period amounted to USD28.7 million while total outflows amounted to USD30.0 million. Assuming that the beginning balance in 2003 was zero, that amounts to an ending balance in 2011 of minus USD1.3 million.

The size of the amounts of the movements, of course, were quite notable and, indeed, makes for curious speculation as to what Corona may have been up to during that period. But an accounting of fund movements in and out is meaningless without a beginning balance — a crucial piece of information that was missing from Morales’s testimony considering the bold claims that were made by the prosecution camp: that Corona held anywhere from $10 million to $12 million in these bank accounts. In finance parlance, such claims made by the prosecution camp were balance sheet (what in essence is a person’s statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth or SALN) figures. What Morales presented were all to do with just cash flow. These are two different things — a difference which an attorney who, by some accounts, is “not good with figures” will most likely not have intuitively grasped.

My own bank statement is quite impressive — if you look at the total inflows and total outflow stated over a given period, that is. But that does not mean I’ve got lots of cash. It simply means those amounts moved through my bank account — my salary accounting for most of the inflow and my personal expenses accounting for most of the outflow. How I wish either the inflow or outflow figures were actually my cash account balance.

In short, after being subject to Morales’s man-voice for close to an hour, we are nowhere near any absolute clarity over whether these claims about how much dollars Corona holds at any one time in his alleged bank accounts has any real bases. Yet Morales’s original claim was quite clear:

Morales told Senator-Judge Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. that the 82 bank accounts contained an estimated $12 million as

“My computation arrived at with the assistance with CPA lawyers, fresh deposits amounted to $12 million,” Morales said at the Senate impeachment court.

What exactly was the nature and approach of this “computation”? Did it involve any known form of mathematics? Perhaps rather than rely on PowerPoint slides prepared by an underpaid clerk, Morales should instead enlighten the court on the equations she may have applied to the task.

Earlier, “civil society” honchos Risa Hontiveros, Walden Bello and Harvey Keh filed private complaints with the Ombudsman making similar claims that they had information about Corona’s dollar holdings in various banks. Keh claimed to have received the information to substantiate his complaint in a brown envelope. “When I opened it, I was surprised and shocked. I saw transactions records—the name of the bank, the name of the depositor Renato Corona, the deposits, the dates the account was opened, opening balance,” Keh was reported to have said.

Indeed…

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, who declined to open the brown envelope saying that he’s never met Keh had already issued a court subpoena summoning Keh to explain his claim last week. Nonetheless, Enrile did not seem to expect much from it. “I don’t know whether he would say anything interesting. I don’t know what information he has,” Enrile was quoted saying of Keh. Keh along with Hontiveros had since denied that they had said anything about Corona possessing cash holdings of USD10 million.

One thing that Morales’s testimony did highlight was how such enormous sums of dollar-denominated cash moved between 82 accounts over the period without any bank officer or branch manager from any of the banks involved raising alarm bells. Chief prosecutor Niel Tupas Jr himself described these movements as being “like professional money laundering”. And yet the Anti Money Laundering Council (AMLC) of the Philippines apparently had seemingly not taken any steps to take the involved banks to task despite being in possession of this data. Indeed, AMLC executive director Vicente Aquino had earlier altogether denied being in the process of investigating Corona’s accounts.

Obviously Morales and the AMLC not only did not contribute any clarity on the matter but muddled it even further. Could this be solid grounds for the defense panel to request that all bank managers involved in the transactions Morales itemised today be summoned to testify in court? Looks like Enrile’s 31st of May ultimatum to conclude this quaint trial won’t be met.

[Photo of Ombudsman Morales courtesy Yahoo! News.]

print

148 Comments on “Ombudsman Morales testimony muddles rather than substantiates Prosecution claims of Corona dollar holdings”

  1. Funny. The word in the press is that Corona is cooked. Yet look at his response…he certainly has retained his confidence. Smells like 45 properties and villas and mansions in the US.

    I think this is another big bang that will eventually fizzle. How many accounts? And the overall “transactional balance” is -$2M? Hmmmm.

    The more people making — or assisting in — false accusations, the better. Make them say everything under oath and then bury them.

    The analysis today was 180% wrong. The end is near for the prosecution.

    1. Pahiya nga si Cuevas at lumabas ang mga baho ni Corona. Dapat magbitiw na siya, aminin ang pangungurakot ni Corona at sabihin na dinadamay nya lang ang korte suprema sa kanyang kalokohan. At tama naman ang sinabi ni Corona na wala siyang $10 million, $12 million pala!

      1. Pero still, missing the point dahil ang talo talaga dito ay si Morales-Carpio because she keeps on confusing everybody.

        Just accept the fact that you get all of this thru the media. Just bring your guns and start to kill innocent people if Corona will be convicted. Uncivilized human beings… <_<

      2. pareho lang ito sa kunwari 45 properties na inilabas ng prosecution, pagkatapos 5 lang pala.marunong din palang mangisda itong si immorales.

        1. tama nag nangingisda si morales pero bobo si cuevas at kinakagat niya ang paen ng prosecutor kaya nagmumukha siyang tanga ….akala ata ay kakampihan siya ni enrile at miriam at joker …tapos na ang palakasaan malapit na ang eleksion …

  2. I am very disappointed at the Ombudsman and the Pnoy appointee to the COA Mendoza. Both of them tried very hard to obfuscate the issue by their presentation more designed to confuse than clarify. I wonder if other people noticed the big change in the image and demeanor of Mendoza. Whereas before she looked like a working mom, now she looks more like a Belo model complete with matching ear rings. My my, iba na talaga ang nasa power.

      1. Nah. Just the opposite actually. Ginagawa lang nila iyon for their Noynoying president and not the country.

        Wala ka lang alam. 🙂

    1. diba ganyan din ang ginagawa ni arroyo noon mga witness na nawawala at mga jornalis na pinapapatay ,massacre sa magindanao. mga pera nga mga depatamento ng gobyerno na kinukurakot niya ..yung elecksion na dinaya niya at nag-sorry pa .ngayon gusto pa ninyo ng ebidensya …kawawa naman kayong mga bayaran ni arroyo at corona hindi tumatalab ang mga sina sabi ninyo sa mga tao…

      1. May massacre din sa Hacienda Luisita, at iba pang patayan na bodyguards ni panot mismo gumawa. Hindi mo ba nabalitaan?

      2. Mas kawawa ang mga utak-squatter na tulad mo because not only you are misled by media but you believe on sensationalized news than important information.

        On the Maguindanao Massacre, it would not be a big deal if they were just ordinary people; but they brought it up because of journalists. But, they ARE people, right? Check this out: pity are the victims who were fooled on their emoness when they filed that charge against GMA made by the insane jackass named Harry Roque. Well, of course, wala kang sasabihin dahil nakuha mo lahat iyon sa media. Kung kurakot si GMA dapat magpresenta ka ng evidence at hindi galing sa mga whistleblower nya; ung galing sa papel.

        Hindi tatalab? Yes, they’re becoming idiots since they were misled by media so they become stupid. Jusr accept the fact that you are stupid and wants to live a CHAOTIC and MEDIOCRE life. Right?

  3. Parang may kulang ata sa sinabi ng Ombudsman. She should have said:
    “My computation arrived at with the assistance with MALACANANG CPA lawyers, fresh deposits amounted to $12 million,”

    Malacanang lawyers were in contact with Mendoza and Carpio-Morales the whole weekend. The report that Carpio-Morales read and Powerpoint she presented were handiworks of Malacanang lawyers.

        1. @ Daido Katsumi: Don’t resort to ad hominem. If you do as you did, it only shows you have no valid arguments anymore.

  4. i guess the saying that “if its too giid to be true. its probably not true” applies in this afternoon’s melodrama. A “lantern of lies”, according to the CJ.

    1. dapat lang na maging matapang ka pa rin kahit na alam na ng madla na napakarami mo nang ninakaw na dolyar!

        1. @Daido

          I just copied and pasted the contents of your link.

          MORALES’ TESTIMONY DID NOT PROVE ANYTHING!

          Explosive sounding as it was, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales DID NOT PROVE ANYTHING when she testified in the Senate Impeachment Court that Chief Justice Renato Corona had $10 million in 82 dollar accounts in five different banks.

          Morales presented a power-point presentation of supposed transactions worth thousands of dollars in Corona’s alleged 82 bank accounts.

          But take note, ladies and gentlemen:
          First: Until the trial adjourned, the figures presented by Morales DID NOT AMOUNT to $10 million.

          Second: Morales admitted that she arrived at the $10 million amount BASED ONLY on supposed documents from the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC). Meaning, she had NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of the documents’ contents and WAS NOT PRIVY to the preparation of these.

          Third: Morales admitted that the documents were ONLY ELECTRONICALLY-GENERATED copies from the AMLC databank.

          Remember the BIG, FAT LIE of the prosecution on Corona’s supposed 45 properties based on computer-generated documents from the Land Registration Authority (LRA) databank, people?

          After boasting the supposed 45 properties I media, the prosecution themselves later admitted they had proof ONLY FOR 21.

          Fourth: Related to this, the supposed AMLC documents HAVE NOT BEEN AUTHENTICATED by the banks Morales mentioned as certified true copies.

          Fifth: Morales said Corona’s supposed 82 dollar accounts started in 2003. But she DID NOT PRESENT PROOF that ALL of these were still active. On the contrary, Morales herself revealed that one of the accounts, a time deposit, was PRE-TERMINATED or CLOSED on the day Corona was impeached last year.

          Sixth: Morales FAILED TO PRESENT the beginning or current balances of the supposed 82 dollar accounts to prove that these indeed held $10 million.

          What he cited only were movements of funds which, again,did not amount to $10 million

          Seventh: Morales did not present documentary evidence that the supposed 82 accounts were indeed all owned by Corona.

          In the LRA HOAX, no less than the LRA administrator admitted before the impeachment court that not all of the 45 properties his agency supplied to the prosecution were still owned by Corona.

          Eighth: Morales did not have DEPOSIT OR WITHDRAWAL slips or other bank documents for the supposed 82 accounts proving ownership by Corona. The possibility that the supposed AMLC documents were simply manufactured by a computer whiz kid in our out of the agency is very, very high!

          Let not anybody be MISLED!

          Morales’ word IS NOT GOSPEL TRUTH! FAIRNESS dictates that Corona’s explanation must be heard first.

          As it is, Morales’ testimony was MEANINGLESS!

      1. Paano ka nakakasiguro na ninakaw nga yung mga dolyar, kung meron nga talaga? Nakita mo ng personal? Ikaw ba ang ninakawan? O tinatanggap mo lang ang kahit anong sabihin sayo ng panot mong presidente?

      2. @fishball

        Well, well… you must be a recycled version of Nutzi Vincenzo. You tagged the CJ as guilty even before the impeachment court handed down its judgement. As I said before… fabrication of evidence is now an instrument of public policy. Include black propaganda, hate-think, demonization and trial by publicity. The yellow state repeats this every time. You can’t fool all of the people all of the time!

  5. Sounds to me like they’re intent on playing with the Pinoys’ capacity for inggit when it comes to big sums of money moving around. Never mind that the net balance is small; what’s apparently a big issue to small-minded Pinoys is that that much money moved around without their laying a hand on it. Pffft.

    1. Hndi naiingit ang madla, nagagalit sila dahil napakalaking halaga nito at nasa kamay lang ng iisang tao. Pano kaya kung galing sa bulsa ng bayan ito?

      1. Listen up EMO kid. It is total idiocy if you keep on claiming that GMA and Corona is ‘stealing’ YOUR money which is the government’s money to begin with.

        While it’s very OK for you that PNoy has the biggest pork barrel and he even used it to bribe the Congress on impeaching the CJ. Double standard, eh?

        1. goverment’s money is from the tax payments made by the people ergo, pera ng bayan ninakaw.

        2. @noah: Taxation isn’t YOURS, son! There is no taxation w/o representation!

          In fact, you love to see taxpayer’s money being wasted for this kind of circus.

  6. Why does the Chief Justice have 82 US dollar bank accounts? For efficiency of accounting?

    What is the most logical answer?

      1. Malamang kung 10 lang yang accounts at di 82, “mapapatunayan” na naman na “malinis” na tao na naman si Corona (sa twisted na moral standard ng ….). Parang okay lang pumatay ng tao basta pag kinasuhan ka, tama yung bilang.

      2. Hehe, so hindi mo nalang papansinin ang kalokohan ng gobyernong ito? Bravo for your sheer idiocy and ignorance.

        Still missing the point.

  7. It’s like the alledge properties of Corona…it began with 45, then dwindled to 5 or 7 properties. When will we learn that, we are dealing with Liars and Manipulators. These vicious people, are hired by the Aquino and the Cojuangco families, to hold on the land they swindled called: Hacienda Luisita…They are promoting the show also, to divertt your attentions from a Noynoying Lazybone Noynoy Aquino…

    1. Yep, even the yellowtards in my house think that this “testimony” has proven ill for the CJ when in reality, it is the “45 properties” all over again.

      Mapapahiya nanaman sila pag napatunayan na sinungaling ang ombudsman.

      1. Just because we don’t believe in YELLOW Propaganda (which is actually BLACK) doesn’t mean we believe in some ‘black propaganda’ that you keep on sh*tposting.

        Oh yeah, nice logic you got there. Well, you will not listen because you’re a certified Yellow Zombie. Wala ka talagang maibabato sa katotohanan kung Yellow Propaganda lang ang ibabato mo sa amin. BOBO. 😛

        1. hahaha!!! tanggapin mo na ibedensya at wala kulong si corona kayo ang mga BOBO dahil wala na kayong masabi lagi nalang si pinoy ang sinisisi ninyo ang sisihin ninyo ay si cuevas na ulyanin na akala ata niya ay uubra ang pagiging kaibigan niya si enrile at miriam at joker pero dahil malapit na ang eleksion wala na sila kontra sa mga witness napipi na si joker mabuti pa si marcos nagsalita ahahaha!!!! mga BOBO

        2. @nelson: Sorry, but ikaw ang BOBO. Sa posts mo lang halata na e. Worse, you just want to bring Corona in jail because that is what you see on him: a crook. In reality, the media branded him as such.

        3. @Daido Katsumi
          I think Fishball is the new name of Vincenzo. If it is, then Vincenzo may have taken a new level in commenting, with a militant voice this time, unlike in the old days, when he is just like a timid emo kid.

        4. @nelson
          nelson i’m sorry po pero sa tingin ko rin oo nga, talagang BOBO ka…maligo ka nga at baka sa sobrang init natuyo na ang utak mo…manalamin ka nga at alisin mo yan muta mo.

        5. @nelson

          Congrats nelson, you have just earned the title of the most idiotic troll ever on this site!

        1. The workers are the very poor in a society full of extremely brutal and condescending rich and to get involved could compromise their low paying and only hope for a job and possibly their well-being, the security guards are more like helpers and take the punishment unfortunately from the well-to-do here.

  8. Hyden,

    For now it is still at 82, unless it dwindles. Therefore, for the moment that number must stand — that there are 82. (If there are only 8, then we revisit the validity of the question)

    Why does a Chief Justice need that many US dollar bank accounts? We’re not talking investment placements alone (which can be laddered) but different accounts. From four?

    1. This Ombudsman Justice Morales, is the model on which Noynoy Aquino wants to turn the Supreme Court. Morales works for the interest of the Aquinos and the Cojuangcos to protect their Hacienda Luisita. He can use also Morales to attack his political enemies. And as a political hatchet woman, in his political inquisition programs…Is this what we want?

  9. It is funny how people take the numbers as is. The numbers are huge due to the transactions incurred. If I will compute my bank account in that matter, I would prolly have a couple of millions as well over the past 7years that I have been working, but NO! ‘coz the ending balance is what matters. And we do not know where those money transacted were used. I can move my little amount of money from one bank to the next and it transactions and iincur, syet ang YAMAN ko rin para!
    Basing it on the ppt presentation, dubious ung data. Even an rookie accountant should know that it is incorrect.

      1. Meh. You just want to put him in jail w/o any strong evidence against him.

        You’re just an idiot, just like Morales-Carpio. Ipit ka na rin dahil wala ka nang masabing matino. 😛 Thanks

    1. chk out today’s hearing para malaman kung di nga na-consider ang scenario na nabanggit mo. enoy! 🙂

      besides, Article II charge is Non Disclosure in SALN.

      Enrile warned Judd Roy that presenting the Ombudsman is not about the determination on the existence of $10M but on the existence of assets whether one dollar or ten million dollar and their relevance on entry in SALN.

  10. itchyBB

    Yes. That is the weakness of the presentation — there is no NET number. What they should have done is present the ending balances every year. That would have been a better pattern to show.

  11. The powerpoint presentation shown in today’s impeachment trial did not provide any damning evidence that could sway the senator judges to vote for the removal of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.

    What the powerpoint presentation showed were deposits and withdrawals from one account to another in the name of the same account holder. The COA analysts who aided the Ombudsman in preparing the presentation termed the transactions as ‘circuitous’ but a closer analysis of the figures reveal that most of the transactions were placements in different accounts, probably short-term time deposits to maximize interest earnings, and redeposits of the proceeds back to the ‘mother account’.

    This withdrawal and redeposit can result in a huge transactional balance but does not increase the asset considerably.

    Let us illustrate:

    Say we have an initial deposit of $1M in a savings account. Then, we will withdraw $500,000 per month, place the withdrawal in a 30-day time deposit and redeposit the proceeds of the time deposit upon maturity back to our Savings account. At an interest rate of 5% per annum on our 30-day $500,000 time deposit, we will earn a monthly interest of $2,083.33, which is subject to a final withholding tax of 20% or $416.67 and leaves us with a net interest of $1,666.67. If we redeposit the net proceeds ($501,666,67) back to our savings account and we do this cyclical transaction, in twelve months, we would have deposited a total of $6,020,000 but this would have been accompanied by the monthly withdrawal of $500,000 for our placement to the time deposit account or a total of $6,000,000 withdrawals over a period of twelve months.

    This leaves us a net earning of $20,000 in one year. If we add that to our initial deposit of $1M, our ending balance would only be $1,020,000.

    Unless the continuation of the powerpoint presentation can reveal that the dollar deposits in the name of the Chief Justice contain year-end balances of more than $10M as earlier touted, the figures of all the deposits and withdrawals splashed over TV screens can never deliver the expected blow that can hurt the Chief Justice, but might, in fact, swing public sympathy in his favor.

    1. bakit hindi nya sinulat sa kanyang SALN kung legal naman pala ang kanyang ginagawa? sabi nga ni senator enrile the amount is irrelevant what is relevant is why was it not included in CJ’s SALN

      1. That is the relevant question in the impeachment trial. The prosecution must show that the year-end balances in the dollar accounts for the relevant years were not declared in the SALN.

        There is always a possibility that the cash in bank were converted into a different form of asset and the non-cash asset was declared in the SALN.

        Showing the details of deposits and withdrawals moves away from the relevant issue and feeds on speculative assumptions.

        1. all the more that the CJ must show in detail why he has or does not have any FCD. the CJ could easily debunk this by just taking the witness stand and saying open up my FCD then let’s see if i have any significant amount to write on my SALN. if he hides in technicalities then maybe he is hiding something. this would be the quickest way for him to get out of this mess.

        2. Unfair as the “technicalities” may seem to many of us, we need to understand that the accuracy, authenticity and validity of the evidences are solid.
          It is the PROSECUTIONS’ JOB to ensure that the evidences they present are solid and cannot be debunked by the evidences itself.
          CJ can may well debunked evidences with his eloquence without presenting data, but that would be wrong. That is why the best course of action is to nullify the evidences provided by the prosecution which has been done by the defense. The prosecution cannot even provide solid evidences to prove their allegations.
          People lie, accurate evidences don’t.

    2. Article II charge is Non Disclosure in SALN.

      Enrile warned Judd Roy that presenting the Ombudsman is not about the determination on the existence of $10M but on the existence of assets whether one dollar or ten million dollar and their relevance on entry in SALN.

    3. chk out today’s hearing para malaman kung di nga na-consider ang scenario na nabanggit mo. enjoy! 🙂

      PINAPANGUNAHAN NINYO KASI. Kayo lang kasi ang magaling.

  12. start the count down malapit ng sumabog si corona dahil tanga si cuevas pinatawag niya si capio akala at niya ay obra ang alam niya ke capio at hindi tinanggap ni enrile ang objection niya mga tuta na bayaran ni coroana at arroyo tanggapin na ninyo na talo na kayo wala ng magbabayad sa inyo maghanaphanap na kayo ng ibang magbabayad sa inyo hindi na uubra ang paninisi ninyo kay pinoy..tama walang 10 million dahil 12million ang pera nito ito siguro ang perang ibinigay ng world bank na pinatutubuan niya sa bangko at ang tubo ay winiwithdraw at dinediposito sa ibang account still nakaw parin…akala at niya maloloko niya ang ang mga tao hahahaha!!!! panay ang tawa ni corona ng desisionan ang HL ngayon si pinoy ang nagtatawa sa kanya…hahaha!!!

    1. The countdown for CHAOS has begun! You’re a total idiot because the SYSTEM is the root of the problem and not the people around it.

      Still missing the point because you’re still EMO around it.

    2. According to Corona, “it’s a lantern of lies.” It seems that Morales is desperate just to make the CJ surrender. Confusing, isn’t it?

      Ikaw lang ang natutuwa idot because INSANE people love to confuse everyone.

      1. who’s desperate, the ombudsman has already laid down her cards and all the cj has done was issue a press release saying they are just “a lantern of lies”. let him take the witness stand to debunk all this accusations but at the end of the day non inclusion of FCD in his SALN will definitely impeach him.

        1. But here is the problem: even Corona himself will answer all the allegations against him, some idiots will find a way to HUMILIATE him. That’s all I can say.

        2. @daido kailan daw sasagutin? appearing in the impeachment court does not guarantee that, baka nga he’ll invoke pa ung bill of rights… hmmmmm?

  13. The real issue is not Corona but the lack of help by the money laundering section and the many disclaimers from the bank and government offices that say that’s not the original copy or nobody ever got that information from us? Or apparently government high level employee’s need some sort of search warrant for information what? Shouldn’t the money laundering section already have all the information on CJ? And if not what purpose do they serve if you have to go through so many processes to get that out of them. The whole Dollar account secrecy and asset hiding needs to end for all members in government and what about the banks? they seem shady at best it’s like pulling teeth to get simple information, “Government needs to be transparent” that’s the real headliner and how are voters supposed to get the real story on their favorite candidate with so much in-fighting, secrecy and grand standing.

    1. Yan ang ginagawa ng kasalukuyang administrasyon ang maging transparent at hulihin ang mga lumalabag dito tulad ni Gutierrez, Abalos, Mendoza, 3 Arroyo at si kapalmuks Corona

      1. Focusing on trivial matter are more important huh? Then no wonder why we suck as a country.

        The SYSTEM is the problem.

  14. The real truth is revealed as it points towards the hypocrisy and double standards of the present administration. Blame games and scapegoats are convenient to prop up the false images of a straight path mantra. The KKKK cronies of Mr. BS Aquino receive special treatment and are not subject to the severe accountability accorded to the perceived enemies of Mr. Aquino.

    Selective prosecution of perceived enemies in ongoing. A petite lady congresswoman is demonized with hate-think, black propaganda and trial by publicity. The “father” of the people says he will never pardon her. He turns a blind eye towards his cronies mansion development program. No investigation is forthcoming for the perceived friends, relatives, classmates and appointees of the sleeping president.

    When the machinery of state is used and thrown against even Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, this brings to mind the making of a police state. All other perceived enemies will suffer the same fate. All the lies, fabrications… all the evil done will not lead to a straight and narrow path. We are trapped in a quagmire created by all the evil examples of Mr. BS Aquino. True justice and fairness has given way to vindictiveness, self-righteous hypocrisy and the self interests of those presently in power. The blackouts in Mindanao is not the tip of the iceberg. Before his term is done, there will be more of his plague. The worst is yet to come.

    1. yung million dollars pwedeng panggastos to solve the blackout in mindanao. sayang naunahan tayo ni corona! pero okay lang un di ba?! 🙂

      1. Troll.

        You’re saying that because that is what the media tells you and you’re so vindictive and malicious. So PNoy’s bigger pork barrel is ok for you. You’re stupid.

      2. @noah

        You are just like the rest of the yellow zombies. You believe too much that your master BS Aquino and his cronies are all squeaky clean. Your attempts at continuing trial by publicity and black propaganda is duly noted. Beware of the moderators. They just might do another Nutzi Vincenzo.

      3. Oh my goodness, teh! Tulad nga nang tanong ng defense, why single this out? Press time ito?
        The power problem and the thousands of cases in the ombudsman could have been solved if resources were properly managed and we as a nation were vigilant enough to look into these matters early on.
        Nakikisawsaw lang tayo sa kung anong trip ng media. Yes, the alleged money CJ has could well assist the power problem in the south, pero naman, why focus on the sum alone?
        Why not focus on what we have now and work with it? We’re a nation stuck in the past that is why there is no progress. Haists…

  15. FYI. COA commissioners Mendoza and Tan who possessed extensive forensic auditing experience. Mendoza was the one who leaked irregularities in the miitary. Hindi ito mga pipitsuging mga CPA. Hindi rin pipitsuging justice ang Ombudsman.

    WHO NEEDS THE PROSECUTION TEAM IF THE DEFENSE CAN ALREADY PROSECUTE! Hmmmmmmmmmm…

    1. She did not even validate the data she got from AMLC, anong extensive forensic doon? The documents were not even authenticated and she hides by saying tedious and long process and resulted to simplified interpretation. As an analyst, the data needs to be extensively reviewed. If done in haste, a proper disclaimer has to be made. And a follow up needs to be done to validate the information. It seems na tinamad lang sila pag aralan and based it on simple understanding of the data.

  16. One need not be a genius to understand this very simple piece of information but perplexed by that unprofessional-looking power point presentation. (It was really an eye sore to see a presentation like that. I mean, seriously, that quality of analysis in front of the august Senate of the ROP???? Come on, the Filipinos deserve more than that!!).

    Simple arithmetic. Suppose I have one apple. I passed it to my empty-handed friend A who in turn passed it on to empty-handed friend B and the to empty-handed C and then to empty-handed D. QUESTION: How many apple/s circculated (or circuited as Ombudsman has put it) among my four friends A, B, C and D? My first grader niece answered: ONE. But the “hindi pipitsuging Ombudsman” and “hindi pipitsuging CPA-Mendoza” chorused: FOUR.

    If we have a COA commissioner and Ombudsman who do not know simple arithmetic, then the Philippines really has a BIG problem. And if Filipinos will buy that analyses, our counrty has the BIGGEST problem on earth. Another Guinness title in offing.

    By the way, I am a CPA myself. I also uncovered some irregularities worth billions of pesos in the Military’s finances when I was doing a project there. And I was just a junior staff then. Which proves, you dont need to be a genius or “hindi pipitsugin” to understand these very simple transactions. FILIPINO, USE YOUR COCONUT SHELL!!!

    1. Haven’t you just heared the ombudsman’s testimony today that multiple transactions similar to what you have just described were considered as just one entry.

      Akala nyo kayo lang magaling!

      At may nakita ka na pala irregularities bakit wala kang ginawa? Asus.

        1. unsigned? may cover letter pa nga sa persona transmission to Ombudsman. andun ba sila sa hearing today or busy fabricating more stories. hanu ba yan!

        2. ayon kay tranquil? 🙂

          reporter: sabi nyo dinedeny daw po ng AMLC na galing sa kanila ung report?

          tranquil: may nagsabi po sa amin

          reporter: sino?

          tranquil: tingnan nyo na lang po.. avaiable naman yan sa internet

          😉

        3. The Ombudsman had it delivered I thought by the Director in charge of the area? Even so why so many procedures to prove within government itself, what’s that say about the government and its many agencies, what’s their purpose if their rendered useless.

  17. CJ Corona’s attitude still exudes confidence. He might be a great liar and a fantastic actor. Or he might know that he truly is clean and that the garbled “evidence” against him is utterly false.

    He knows he will take the stand. The Defense knows he will take the stand. That doesn’t seem to be a problem for them. Why not? They must believe he has the evidence to negate the charges.

    So why the delay? Why not jump to the final checkmate?

    Either this is a no win situation; no way out…and he is cooked (suicide prevention is in order). Or…Crusty Coy Cuervas is setting up a big counter attack that will launch any legal proceedings in a whole new direction.

    The Offense broke a lot of rules. The evidence against them has been gathered under oath…but nothing has been pursued. The little lady, brown bags, bank documents, tampered documents, government “searches” without adequate “warrants” (LRA, AMLA), etc.

    There seems to be several instances of extra-legal (nice word for “illegal”) actions by the government.

    I am guessing that the counter offensive is amassing its forces out of sight. Might as well not only win the impeachment battle; might as well win the next elections.

    And now I maybe have an inkling as to why UNA and Lakas are so happily active right now.

    The times they are a changin’.

    1. My one question is that if he is alleged to have all that money in numerous accounts (82? ridiculous number, don’t you think?) that money should come from somewhere. So, where did he allegedly pilfer that from, pray tell? Don’t they have to prove that he got the money from somewhere? And if he did, he wasn’t detected all these years? Ridiculous! That is why CJ Corona was so bold in his retort, he is confident that he will be able to explain it, and shame Morales in the process.

      1. maybe from….
        Arroyos- Iggy, Mike, Gloria, etc?
        Arroyo allies?
        Oh yea, PAL, Megaworld, just check the pending cases at SC at that time, might as well include who voted along with RC and check the inflows and outflows to their accounts.

        Again, I am speculating, but I agree it is worth looking into.

      2. maybe from…

        Electoral protests? With the hilig and intensity of local election, to an evil mind with legal background, puwede nga palang pagkakitaan ito, every election and in between elections. Kaya pala ang tagal ng electoral protests meron ding nagkakabayaran, wala pa rito yung dagdag bawas. Business opportunity nga naman.

        The genius of this operation is nasa “foreign currency” and “judiciry independence”.

        1. Meron din naman. But GMA will never be charged of electoral sabotage concerning the 2007 elections if all of this were based on hearsay.

          Even the 2010 elections were rigged. Sure there wasn’t no wiretapping but you still had from the reports of the volunteers typical fraudulent actions and behaviors despite the media sugarcoating it as a ‘clean’ election. Then the potential issue of nantes with Narcopolitics and whoever was linked to him could easily be damaged. Thankfully, it was a non-issue since he died a ‘mysterious’ death, thus taking his secret and damaging testimony to the grave with him.

        2. problem with this comment noah is that we are not yet even sure if all these 82 accounts are in fact the CJ’s. There was no proof of ownership established only that there were reported transactions between these accounts from the AMLC.

          82 accounts is a hefty number of accounts to begin with (too confusing to even bother handling by someone who is supposedly trying to hide it). But in all that presentation there was no confirmation or evidence presented by anyone yet that these accounts were the CJ’s or his wife’s.

          But in all seriousness, if they were really hiding it, why would a culprit of CJs caliber hide it all locally and not in an off-shore account or a place like Switzerland?

          These are not peso accounts we are talking of? Surely someone of CJs caliber could have done so if he really wanted to but apparently he was dumb enough to do this all locally? And with amounts that will surely trigger the bells of supposed money laundering watchdogs?

          That just seems too ridiculous if you ask me.

        3. @ Noah

          – Why did Corona took the midnight appointment when those others refuse to do so?

          – Why did Corona, on account of his history with GMA voted 19 out of 19 cases related to her or atleast inhibited in some of these cases?

          – Why did Corona “spiced up” his academic credentials at the SC website?

          – Why did Corona allowed GMA to leave even though the three conditions he set were not met?

          – Why did Corona meddled with her wife’s relative’s properties?

          – Why is it that his wife’s relatives, one of them a nun at the sunset of her life, has not a good word for Corona?

          – Why? why? why?

        4. Dumb is not the operative word.

          “Garapal” at “Makapal ang mukha” succinctly puts it.

        5. “- Why did Corona took the midnight appointment when those others refuse to do so?”

          Can you tell how it is illegal? And who are those who have refused the chief justice midnight appointment?

          “- Why did Corona, on account of his history with GMA voted 19 out of 19 cases related to her or atleast inhibited in some of these cases?”

          What are those cases? Are you sure Corona is involved in only 19 cases
          related to GMA?

          “- Why did Corona “spiced up” his academic credentials at the SC website?”

          Can you elaborate the word “spiced up’?

          “- Why did Corona allowed GMA to leave even though the three conditions he set were not met?”

          Can you tell us those conditions?

          “- Why did Corona meddled with her wife’s relative’s properties?”

          How did he do it?

          “- Why is it that his wife’s relatives, one of them a nun at the sunset of her life, has not a good word for Corona?”

          In what way?

          Your style is for those who don’t want to do research on the issue and who depends only on hearsay. They aptly call it “hate-baiting”.

          No need to cite the specifics. Just post any hate-baiting questions and ergo.

          Once refuted, you can always claim that you just have an inquisitive mind.

        6. @ Trosp

          If I need to research on, say the status of Libya, do I need to go there?

          How do you get your “facts”?

          How can you say a source is bias or fair?

          When Enrile castigated the prosecution, is he being fair? When he is castigating Cuevas, is he being bought?

          When Sen. Santiago lambasts the prosecution, is she being truthful to the spirit of the Law? When she is saying that Corona should appear before the Impeachment Court, is she being unfair? When she allowed the presentation of Morales, is she being biased?

        7. @ Trosp

          If I need to research on, say the status of Libya, do I need to go there?

          How do you get your “facts”?

          How can you say a source is bias or fair?

          When Enrile castigated the prosecution, is he being fair? When he is castigating Cuevas, is he being bought?

          When Sen. Santiago lambasts the prosecution, is she being truthful to the spirit of the Law? When she is saying that Corona should appear before the Impeachment Court, is she being unfair? When she allowed the presentation of Morales, is she being biased?

          On what common ground can we frame our arguments? Does it mean if I side with you, then I am fair and against you I am not?

        8. @dikonamasikmura

          In blog commenting, there are those who just want to have their feeling good moment by hitch-hiking in the bandwagon of those they perceived to be in high moral ground.

          They don’t check facts anymore.

          In your case, as you’ve commented –

          “If I need to research on, say the status of Libya, do I need to go there?

          How do you get your “facts”?

          How can you say a source is bias or fair?”

          By that alone, it’s evident you don’t know how to handle and gather facts.

          For the sake of an interesting discussion, let’s go back to your previous comment.

          An example of your leading question:

          “Why did Corona, on account of his history with GMA voted 19 out of 19 cases related to her or at least inhibited in some of these cases?”

          Suppose I’ll answer that for the sake of interesting discussion. Let’s get through the context of what you want to know first by clearing this one – what do you mean by voted 19 out of 19 cases related to her? It is on record that out of 125 decisions, Corona voted in Mrs. Arroyo’s favor only 39 percent of the time according to Emil Jurado. We can check that eventually. Your statistic is 100% and Jurado is 39%. Wow!

          Or this another one leading question from you:

          “Why did Corona allowed GMA to leave even though the three conditions he set were not met?”

          For me to answer that, I would like to know those three conditions that you are citing, what are they?

        9. How about for a more interesting take on the discussion, you answer these two first then I will answer your question “in due time”.

          “When Enrile castigated the prosecution, is he being fair? When he is castigating Cuevas, is he being bought?”

          “When Sen. Santiago lambasts the prosecution, is she being truthful to the spirit of the Law? When she is saying that Corona should appear before the Impeachment Court, is she being unfair? When she allowed the presentation of Morales, is she being biased?”

        10. @dikonamasikmura

          “When Enrile castigated the prosecution, is he being fair? When he is castigating Cuevas, is he being bought?”

          Your question, just like the ones before, will not have an honest answer.

          Suppose the question is rephrased

          “The prosecution is being castigated for misrepresenting the evidence, is it fair?”

          My answer will be yes. The prosecution is misrepresenting their evidence.

          “When he is castigating Cuevas, is he being bought?”

          My answer is no. I can’t prove it.

          “When Sen. Santiago lambasts the prosecution, is she being truthful to the spirit of the Law?”

          Yes if they’re misrepresenting their evidence.

          “When she is saying that Corona should appear before the Impeachment Court, is she being unfair?

          No. She’s expressing her opinion.

          “When she allowed the presentation of Morales, is she being biased?”

          No. BTW, bias to who?

          Don’t make an argument with my answers yet.

          I’m expecting your turn as you’ve committed.

          Then you can go back commenting on my answers.

          Fair enough?

        11. @dikonamasikmura

          I’m patiently waiting for your reply.

          If you won’t reply, I’ll be banned from this blog because I’m driving away a lot of commenters here.

  18. BTW, posters here who use crude language and name-calling are a real turn off. The more that their arguments will be ignored for their crassness. We used to have that old Tagalog term “baros”, bullies who are crass in order to intimidate because they actually lack substance.

    1. @benignO

      “total funds moving into the Corona accounts over the period amounted to USD 28.7 million while total outflows amounted to USD30.0 million. Assuming that the beginning balance in 2003 was zero, that amounts to an ending balance in 2011 of minus USD 1.3 million”

      If this computation is accurate, the negative balance only suggests that the disputed dollar accounts were already significant prior to 2003. That means, the beginning balance could not have been zero. If you really know anything about “basic accounting”, I wonder why you haven’t thought of this net cash flow possibility? It’s so simple to understand. Not even remotely confusing.

      “What Morales presented were all to do with just cash flow. These are two different things — a difference which an attorney who, by some accounts, is ‘not good with figures’ will most likely not have intuitively grasped.”

      Anyone could “have intuitively grasped” the difference if he or she were listening attentively. Ombudsman Morales already told everyone that what she had presented was not the “ending balance” but “transactional balance”. Nevertheless, she showed computation of Corona’s account with fresh deposits amounting to more than 12 million US dollars. Still significantly huge.

      “And the comedy of errors that is the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona continues…”

      The only sure comedy of error here was when the defense camp subpoenaed Ombudsman Morales. Corona’s camp never anticipated that the testimony of the hostile witness would become their greatest blunder. The former Associate Justice revealed her brilliance for neither being rattled by the grumpy, schemy Cuevas, nor being intimidated by the bully, squeaky-voiced Miriam. In fact, the spotless Ombudsman shamed Cuevas with her legal “comprehension” and caught him red-handed being coached in public. Moreover, she even irritated and made Miriam walked out for failing to trap the clever witness with the Senator-Judge’s predictable loaded questions. It’s so obvious that Ombudsman Morales had more brains and definitely more class than Corona’s old dogs. 🙂

      1. “Anyone could “have intuitively grasped” the difference if he or she were listening attentively. Ombudsman Morales already told everyone that what she had presented was not the “ending balance” but “transactional balance”. Nevertheless, she showed computation of Corona’s account with fresh deposits amounting to more than 12 million US dollars. Still significantly huge.”

        My bank account has a total transactional balance of millions in the past 10 years. However, I’m not a millionaire. Know why? That’s because my company deposits my salary and then I go to withdraw it to use for my expenses, with barely little left.

        TL;DR – Transactional balance means nothing without the ending/current balance.

        1. @ Teabag Deluxe

          “My bank account has a total transactional balance of millions in the past 10 years. However, I’m not a millionaire.”

          Same here. I’m also a non-millionaire employee like you. But do we both have millions of dollars flowing in and out of 82 bank accounts? I don’t. Do you?

        2. @Teabag

          Providing just a link won’t promptly convinced comment readers to follow it. The way I see it, at least post some interesting snippets or “teasers” that will call their attention.

          There are lot of comment posters here that will only read items that conforms to their agenda. This is aside from their having a reading comprehension problems.

          That’s why they’re clobbered most of the time in engaging discussions.

          BTW, the link that you have just provided is very interesting. As if I’ve read a preview of a Ludlum’s classic.

      2. @princesa

        So you’re telling us that this old bitch Carpio is 100% accurate even she was using an unauthenticated documents from AMLA. That’s the way I see how your mind works.

        “The only sure comedy of error here was when the defense camp subpoenaed Ombudsman Morales. Corona’s camp never anticipated that the testimony of the hostile witness would become their greatest blunder.”

        How did you determined that. Did the defense whined about that?

        Can’t blame you for imagining scenarios that would fit your narrative.

        1. @ Trosp

          “So you’re telling us that this old bitch Carpio is 100% accurate even she was using an unauthenticated documents from AMLA. That’s the way I see how your mind works.”

          First, the documents were given NOT by AMLA but AMLC. Check your acronym pls. Second, Ombudsman Morales already said she could not verify the authenticity of the documents unless the concerned banks could prove them as such. But since the transactional balance report were done by an authorized government agency as the AMLC or Anti-Money Laundering Council which is composed of the Governor of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) as Chairman and the Commissioner of the Insurance Commission (IC) and the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as members, she had a valid assumption they’re “accurate”. So if you still can’t comprehend, then it only reveals “how your mind works”.

          “Can’t blame you for imagining scenarios that would fit your narrative.”

          How could I imagine them if those comedy of errors committed by Corona’s old dogs all happened LIVE on TV. Why don’t you just watch them on youtube and enjoy them. 🙂

        2. PrincesaUrduja: TROLL.

          Fact is that you got misled by the media and that’s it. Right? There is nothing much worse than the incompetent prosecution and Morales is still confusing things.

        3. @Princesa

          The way I see it, Carpio’s testimony is only significant if it’s authenticated from the source.

          Are they?

          “Under re-direct examination, Carpio Morales said she did not verify the contents of the AMLC document since she would have to go to the banks, which would then cite the secrecy prohibition in the Foreign Currency Deposit Act.

          Lead defense counsel Serafin Cuevas tried to weaken her credibility by going over the contents of the AMLC document and asking her if she knew whether the information on the dollar accounts are verified.

          Carpio Morales admitted she did not know the origins of the transactions and whether the bank accounts mentioned in the report were already closed.

          “You give us the impression that you swallowed hook line and sinker the entire contents submitted to you in response to your letter request (by AMLC),” Cuevas said.

          “Again, I say, THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT THEY WOULD GIVE ME CORRECT INFORMATION.” Morales replied.”

          http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/-depth/05/15/12/ombudsman-grilled-power-get-info-amlc

          And if the information is not correct? A classic comedy of error, isn’t it?

          Haven’t you noticed this old bitch is already talking about getting Corona the next time around?

      3. Ok so she relied on another department to get the details. The question is, did the other department authenticate the account? Will they be able to testify in court that the accounts/data are accurate and cannot be debunked? Those are the problems found on the testimony.
        Her arrogance and obvious bias on “depends on the compliant” shows that everything was rushed during the holiday. That is where the weakness of the evidence lies.
        Ok, let’s say you’re a businesswoman and you need to present a report to a client. You requested for a “reliable” source for data, no interpretation yet. You asked another department to check on it and provide a simplified interpretation because the data was huge. They gave you the report you wanted. You read it briefly but you are have no or little knowledge about the information provided, are you just gonna go to the client and say hey here’s the report? No! You would go back to your sources, ask information and request for them to authenticate and validate the information provided. That is what a diligent businessman would do. Else, if the reports are false and without anyone being able to back you up or correct the report, they will surely not want to have business with you. That is incompetence and negligence on the businessman’s part.

  19. My solution to this problem is to allow a neutral, highly credible CPA firm like PwC or Ernst and Young do a audit on these accounts. I’m sure these guys are better than anyone of the CPAs from Malacanang.

  20. @ Daido Katsumi

    “PrincesaUrduja: TROLL.”

    Name-calling is “the use of offensive names especially to win an argument or to induce rejection or condemnation without objective consideration of the facts.” Furthermore, it is the worn-out strategy of losers.

    “Fact is that you got misled by the media and that’s it. Right?”

    No, the fact is that you got misled by your own bias.

    “There is nothing much worse than the incompetent prosecution and Morales is still confusing things.”

    Ombudsman Morales’ testimony may only be confusing to Corona supporters. Prosecution may be incompetent but so as the defense. Did you forget that the Presiding Officer Enrile had expressed his disappointment over the defense’s dull witnesses? And that Senator-Judge Miriam said their best and only defense left is Corona? 🙂

    1. @princesa

      According to you –

      “Ombudsman Morales’ testimony may only be confusing to Corona supporters.”

      Is this not confusing? –

      When this old bitch was questioned by old dog, grumpy, schemy Cuevas (you hate name-calling, isn’t it? Name-calling is for losers according to you. Pot calling the kettle black case he he he…):

      “You give us the impression that you swallowed hook line and sinker the entire contents submitted to you in response to your letter request (by AMLC),” Cuevas said.

      “Again, I say, THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT THEY WOULD GIVE ME CORRECT INFORMATION.” Morales replied.”

      So she’s testifying but she has a disclaimer. Meaning, on her testimony, on her ppt presentation, she presented a very explicit Corona’s dollar account transactions WITHOUT counter-checking their authenticity.

      If this Morales is a man, I would said straight to his face to MAN UP! Don’t leave home without your balls!

      The way your mind works, it’s not confusing heh.

      “Prosecution may be incompetent but so as the defense.”

      How about telling us some examples of defence’s incompetence?

      “Did you forget that the Presiding Officer Enrile had expressed his disappointment over the defense’s dull witnesses.”

      So what is significant with “Enrile’s disappointment” and “dull witness”. For you, that is significant if I’m going to based it on how you posit it.

      For me, the significant one is how MDA exposed the “lying witnesses”.

      We could have a very interesting discussion if you can just cite the items you are claiming.

      Can’t blame you for imagining scenarios that would fit your narrative.

  21. @ Trosp

    “And if the information is not correct? A classic comedy of error, isn’t it?”

    And that is only IF. As of now, the defense is YET to disprove Morales’ testimony. Patience, my dear.

    “Haven’t you noticed this old bitch is already talking about getting Corona the next time around?”

    Yes, I did not only notice it but Ombudsman Morales declared that in the impeachment court. So what’s the problem if it is warranted? 🙂

    1. Has the information been proven correct? Will AMLC be able to authenticate the information? Will they be able to testify in court that what they have gathered are correct? Did they not say the document/report was unauthenticated?
      If it is warranted to hold another impeachment, so be it. But is it not too premature to say that in court?
      Personally, at I don’t want to say that CJ has no ill-gotten wealth. However, doubts are flying all over the place with regards to motive, manner of disclosure of information, and data gathering done by those against CJ.
      And there is nothing to disprove as the data itself were procured in an illegal manner, or worst, just falsified. There is nothing to disprove as they were not able to PROVE that the information gathered do exist as it was not authenticated.
      The biggest question, “Does it really exists?”

    2. @princesa

      1. Comedy of errors

      The way my mind works, these are comedy of errors:

      > Prior to hearing, prosecutors were brandishing in the media the documents confirming Corona has 45 plush properties even though some of the ownership documents were obviously not in his name.

      They disavowed their claim during the hearing and blamed the media, the same media to whom they’ve presented their documents, for misquoting them.

      Do I need to post the transcript of how MDA shamed Land Registration Authority (LRA) Administrator Eulalio Diaz for his improprieties?

      > This Harvey Key who was put into stand recently. How he was shamed for his spurious claim.

      > A snippet from Daily Tribune today’s op-ed –

      “Their spokesmen have expectedly gone on a full time spin, now saying that the CJ is so desperate to be acquitted, which they said is why he has now agreed to testify.

      These spokesmen are neither logical nor consistent.

      It was they earlier on, who kept on claiming that Corona should testify and that his refusal to testify is due to his fear of taking the witness stand. So what is it really since the chief magistrate has already announced through his lawyers, that he will be taking the stand on Tuesday? ”

      And a lot more which to my mind are comedy of errors. I’m citing them so that I can present you what I’m talking about.

      According to you –

      “How could I imagine them if those comedy of errors committed by Corona’s OLD DOGS (do you really hate name-calling?) all happened LIVE on TV. Why don’t you just watch them on youtube and enjoy them.”

      How about citing a portion of transcript or a situation where the defense committed comedy of errors that you are claiming? Or maybe links and let’s see what are those you consider as comedy of errors.

      2. Conchita Carpi-Morales

      You’ve commented –

      “Yes, I did not only notice it but Ombudsman Morales declared that in the impeachment court. So what’s the problem if it is warranted?”

      That is your rejoinder to my previous comment –

      “Haven’t you noticed this old bitch (my name-calling triggered by your name calling) is already talking about getting Corona the next time around?”

      To my mind, Morales knew beforehand that Corona will be acquitted. It has nothing to do with me having a problem with a second impeachment case be raised against Corona if it is warranted.

      BTW, Tiglao’s take on Corona’s dollar account not being declared in his SALN is very interesting.

      http://opinion.inquirer.net/28823/colossal-deception-on-corona%E2%80%99s-accounts

      Snippet:

      “So how much did Corona have in his bank accounts, and did he report this in his SALN? While only a guess, it would be the biggest and last of Corona’s banking transactions reported: $687,433.

      That dollar amount is worth P29.4 million now. But in 2001 when the exchange rate was P51 to the dollar, that was equivalent to P35 million. Doesn’t that figure remind you of the P34.7 million payment by the Manila government for the Basa-Guidote property, which the Chief Justice’s better-half, Cristina Corona, received and claimed she was holding in trust, and therefore was not their asset?”

      If that is the case, Carpio will have a lot of splaining to do.

      But then, maybe not. When this old bitch was questioned by old dog, grumpy, schemy Cuevas (you hate name-calling, isn’t it? Name-calling is for losers according to you. Pot calling the kettle black case he he he…):

      “You give us the impression that you swallowed hook line and sinker the entire contents submitted to you in response to your letter request (by AMLC),” Cuevas said.

      “Again, I say, THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT THEY WOULD GIVE ME CORRECT INFORMATION.” Morales replied.”

      A very clear disclaimer isn’t it?

      Can’t blame you for imagining scenarios that would fit your narrative.

    3. @PrincesaUrduja

      I think you have to understand something as well. These “82 accounts” are not part of the impeachment complaint now right? Only the accounts which are part of the PSBank documents from the small lady since that is the the evidence of the prosecution which the defense needs to disprove.

      They only presented the Ombudsman because I believe, the purpose is to show that their claims outside of the impeachment court are unverified and dubious at best. Their move actually prompted the Senator judges to question the “questionable” actions of the office of the Ombudsman.

      Now, going on your “IF” statement, assuming it is proven that all of these statements by some witnesses are found dubious and were misinformation or not properly handled, I believe contempt charges should be filed, regardless if she is the Ombudsman.

      I know you are trying to be neutral as well in this discussion but I just wanted to expound on your comment.

      Cheers!

      1. @ 17Sphynx17

        “These ‘82 accounts’ are not part of the impeachment complaint now right?”

        Precisely. That’s the reason why the prosecution did not present them before as evidence against Corona. So aren’t you wondering why the defense still subpoenaed Ombudsman Morales and other witnesses who had knowledge of Corona’s alleged multi-million dollar accounts IF these were really not relevant to any of the articles of impeachment?

        “They only presented the Ombudsman because I believe, the purpose is to show that their claims outside of the impeachment court are unverified and dubious at best.”

        In my point of view, they presented Ombudsman Morales to demean her preliminary findings and thus prevent her from further investigating Corona’s dollar accounts.

        “Their move actually prompted the Senator judges to question the ‘questionable’ actions of the office of the Ombudsman.”

        I don’t really find them “questionable” since the spotless Ombudsman acted on her own freewill to investigate and prosecute Corona in the exercise of her primary jurisdiction.

        “I know you are trying to be neutral as well in this discussion but I just wanted to expound on your comment.”

        It’s good to know that you appreciate my attempt to be neutral and didn’t bite me when I posted a different point of view. I’d read some of the articles here and was already beginning to think that all posters here were just fanatic Corona supporters who coincidentally hate P-Noy. 🙂

        1. Just because most of us here prefer the rule of law doesn’t mean that we are Corona fanatics.

          The purpose of this impeachment trial instigated by none other than PNoy himself, was to get rid of him… by any means necessary.

  22. @ Trosp

    “you hate name-calling, isn’t it? Name-calling is for losers according to you. Pot calling the kettle black case he he he…”

    I’m just wondering. What do you call Daido Katsumi’s reference to me as TROLL? And how do you label the author of this article when he ridiculed the witness’ MAN-VOICE? Moreover, how do you label yourself when you referred Ombudsman Morales thrice as OLD BITCH?

    I can’t blame you for being obviously BIASED against me while PRETENDING to be BLIND of your friends’ and your own “name-calling” antics. 🙂

    1. @princesa

      Something is wrong with your comprehension or maybe your’re in denial.

      Read this again in my previous comment –

      ““Haven’t you noticed this old bitch (MY NAME-CALLING TRIGGERED BY YOUR NAME CALLING) is already talking about getting Corona the next time around?”

      And this one from my comment again, the complete one –

      “But then, maybe not. When this old bitch (MY NAME CALLING) was questioned by old dog, grumpy, schemy Cuevas (YOUR NAME CALLING. you hate name-calling, isn’t it? Name-calling is for losers according to you. Pot calling the kettle black case he he he…):

      You intentionally nitpicked the part of my comment so that it will fit your narrative heh…

      Check your reading comprehension madam.

      And BTW, where are the defence’s comedy of errors that you were bragging here? It seems they’re all your fairy tales. Is the “it’s there” claim your best convincing argument?

      Can’t blame you for imagining scenarios that would fit your narrative.

      Anyway, I’m too happy for your reply otherwise I’d be banned from this blog. I drove away a lot of commenters here if I drive away one more commenter.

      Cheers!

    2. @ Trosp

      “Something is wrong with your comprehension or maybe your’re in denial.”

      Something is really wrong with your contraction → your’re. That’s for sure.

      “MY NAME-CALLING TRIGGERED BY YOUR NAME CALLING”

      So if BLAMING is the right way of argument, then I can also blame benignO, the author of this article?

      “You intentionally nitpicked the part of my comment so that it will fit your narrative heh…”

      You cherry-pick on comments that reveals your BIAS.

      “Check your reading comprehension madam.”

      Check your grammar first, sir.

      “And BTW, where are the defence’s comedy of errors that you were bragging here? It seems they’re all your fairy tales. Is the ‘it’s there’ claim your best convincing argument?”

      No, it’s called COMMON SENSE which I’m afraid is not so common nowadays.

      “Anyway, I’m too happy for your reply otherwise I’d be banned from this blog. I drove away a lot of commenters here if I drive away one more commenter.”

      Well I’m glad you’re “happy”. But I don’t think the author of this article has any plan of banning you (and other like-minded posters) here since you somehow amplify his point of view. Loudspeakers come in handy I guess. Moreover, there may be dozens of reasons why commenters stop posting their remarks on public forums like this one. Some lose their interest of the topic. Some just like posting one or few comments. And some are even blocked. I hope you’re not that clueless. Unless you have a scientifically based study that shows you’re the sole reason for driving away posters from this blog, DON’T FLATTER YOURSELF TOO MUCH. Get some reality check once in a while and try not to dwell on your imaginary world.

      And next time you enter a public forum, CHECK YOUR EGO AT THE DOOR. Just a friendly advice. 🙂

      1. @pincesa

        According to me –

        ““Haven’t you noticed this old bitch (MY NAME-CALLING TRIGGERED BY YOUR NAME CALLING) is already talking about getting Corona the next time around?”

        And according to you, that is BLAMING! –

        “So if BLAMING is the right way of argument, then I can also blame benignO, the author of this article?”

        Madam, I’m calling it leveling the playing field. Blame yourself if I’ve reciprocated your name name-calling. You labeled Cuevas old dog, grumpy, schemy and I reciprocated by labeling your ombudsman old bitch. Whoever you mentioned in your post is now a fair game for name-calling.

        I ask you to check your comprehension and according to you, check my grammar first.

        I’ve done that long time ago and I don’t forget to mention that here in this blog that grammar is not my strong point. As I’ve commented before –

        “Grammar and spelling are not my strong points.

        But I’d bet my other ball that comprehension is one of my strong points.

        Sadly, I can’t comprehend anything from jcc’s comment.

        What’s the meaning of disconjunctive? Where have you taken your “E”nglish 101?

        Baka disjunctive(?)”

        http://getrealphilippines.com/2011/12/raissa-robles-re-cristina-corona/

        According to me addressing your comedy of error claim by the defense –

        ““And BTW, where are the defence’s comedy of errors that you were bragging here? It seems they’re all your fairy tales. Is the ‘it’s there’ claim your best convincing argument?”

        According to you –

        “No, it’s called COMMON SENSE which I’m afraid is not so common nowadays.”

        The question is where and not what. Really, you have reading comprehension problem. Have you thrown them away?

        Or your reading comprehension is selective?

        Since you’re claiming that the defense has committed comedy of errors, isn’t it just proper for you to cite even one?

        And your answer is “common sense”.

        BTW, you really can’t believe there are commenters here who don’t visit here anymore because I’ve pissed them?

        How do you call a commenter when being refuted will not respond anymore and perhaps, out of shame, will not comment anymore in any topic in this blog?

        Do I need to prove it scientifically as you’re insinuating? Granting I’m going to prove it scientifically, please suggest the method (exclude the common sense spin please.)

        My ego?

        Jeez, I consider it name-calling…

      2. @ Trosp

        “Madam, I’m calling it leveling the playing field.”

        Sir, you said – MY NAME-CALLING TRIGGERED BY YOUR NAME CALLING. For me that’s synonymous to BLAMING ME FOR YOUR NAME CALLING but you disagreed. Instead, you call it “leveling the playing field”. So you’re fond of SUGAR-COATING your antics. Noted.

        “Blame yourself if I’ve reciprocated your name name-calling.”

        So again, you’re just “leveling the playing field” (sugar-coating) and the BLAME is on me? Right. So let me rephrase – if I should BLAME myself for your OLD BITCH name-calling, then benignO should also BLAME himself for my OLD DOGS name-calling. Clear now? Good.

        “I ask you to check your comprehension and according to you, check my grammar first.”

        Yes, that was my response and still is. Can’t read between the lines? I thought so.

        “But I’d bet my other ball that comprehension is one of my strong points.”

        Don’t count on it too much. You’d missed my point several times already.

        “The question is where and not what.”

        Again you have misconstrued me. My response – No, it’s called COMMON SENSE which I’m afraid is not so common nowadays. – is specifically for your question – Is the ‘it’s there’ claim your best convincing argument? – That’s why I told you days ago to WATCH those “comedy of errors” on youtube and enjoy them, remember?

        “Or your reading comprehension is selective?”

        No, but surely you have selective amnesia.

        “Since you’re claiming that the defense has committed comedy of errors, isn’t it just proper for you to cite even one?”

        For your info, I had cited instances of the defense’s “comedy of errors”. Let me remind you of this excerpt from my recent post here – “The former Associate Justice revealed her brilliance for neither being rattled by the grumpy, schemy Cuevas…In fact, the spotless Ombudsman shamed Cuevas with her legal “comprehension” and caught him red-handed being coached in public.” So does your selective amnesia ring a bell now?

        “BTW, you really can’t believe there are commenters here who don’t visit here anymore because I’ve pissed them?”

        That’s circumstantial. NOT concrete evidence.

        “Do I need to prove it scientifically as you’re insinuating? Granting I’m going to prove it scientifically, please suggest the method (exclude the common sense spin please.)”

        It’s just a simple task of arithmetic called COUNTING. So if you don’t have figures to show, you have nothing but CLAIM. 🙂

        1. @princesa

          I’m summarizing –

          (For clarity, my current comments are enclosed in parenthesis.)

          According to you when I commented “Madam, I’m calling it leveling the playing field.” –

          “Sir, you said – MY NAME-CALLING TRIGGERED BY YOUR NAME CALLING. For me that’s synonymous to BLAMING ME FOR YOUR NAME CALLING but you disagreed. Instead, you call it “leveling the playing field”. So you’re fond of SUGAR-COATING your antics. Noted.

          “Blame yourself if I’ve reciprocated your name name-calling.”

          So again, you’re just “leveling the playing field” (sugar-coating) and the BLAME is on me? Right. So let me rephrase – if I should BLAME myself for your OLD BITCH name-calling, then benignO should also BLAME himself for my OLD DOGS name-calling. Clear now? Good.

          “I ask you to check your comprehension and according to you, check my grammar first.”

          Yes, that was my response and still is. Can’t read between the lines? I thought so.”

          ———————————–

          (What is between the lines? Would it be very hard for you to be specific? Or you don’t have any specifics? Just imagining things again?

          Let’s go back again to that issue.

          You’re telling us that you can call people names and if anybody would call your attention by reciprocating what you’re doing – doing also the name-calling at the expense of the person you’re putting in a high spot, THAT IS BLAMING YOU.

          If they say that they are just leveling the playing field, meaning you name-call, they can also name-call – ACCORDING TO YOU, IT’S A SUGAR COATED ANTICS. In our lingo ipinarehas lang, kung may kinukutya ka, binalikan ka rin ng kutya, you labelled it as sugar coated antics?

          May I ask how your name-calling should be treated?

          Just let it go? Just let you badmouth people you don’t like?

          Reading your comment beats the fun I have every time I watch the Jersey Shore or reading the PDI.

          Do I have to read between the lines or is it a common sense thing again?)

          ———————————–
          According to you –

          “Don’t count on it too much. You’d missed my point several times already.”

          ———————————–

          (May I ask what are those points? Or you don’t really have any points at all? If they are, what are they? Don’t tell me that I should read between the lines again.

          Do I have to read between the lines or is it a common sense thing again?)

          ———————————–

          According to you to my statement “The question is where and not what.” –

          “Again you have misconstrued me. My response – No, it’s called COMMON SENSE which I’m afraid is not so common nowadays. – is specifically for your question – Is the ‘it’s there’ claim your best convincing argument? – That’s why I told you days ago to WATCH those “comedy of errors” on youtube and enjoy them, remember?”

          “Or your reading comprehension is selective?”

          No, but surely you have selective amnesia.

          “Since you’re claiming that the defense has committed comedy of errors, isn’t it just proper for you to cite even one?”

          For your info, I had cited instances of the defense’s “comedy of errors”. Let me remind you of this excerpt from my recent post here – “The former Associate Justice revealed her brilliance for neither being rattled by the grumpy, schemy Cuevas…In fact, the spotless Ombudsman shamed Cuevas with her legal “comprehension” and caught him red-handed being coached in public.” So does your selective amnesia ring a bell now?”

          ———————————–

          (My comment is where are they specifically? Cite just a portion of transcript otherwise you’re just pulling our legs. You’re just relating us your fairy tale. Puro ka ‘wento baka walang ‘wenta ‘yan.

          Do I have to read between the lines or is it a common sense thing again?)

          ———————————–

          Another of your comment when I commented “BTW, you really can’t believe there are commenters here who don’t visit here anymore because I’ve pissed them?” –

          “That’s circumstantial. NOT concrete evidence.”

          ———————————–

          (I really don’t have any idea what will be enough for you. Do those people have to provide their testimonial to make it a concrete evidence?

          Do I have to read between the lines or is it a common sense thing again?)

          ———————————–

          And when I’ve commented “Do I need to prove it scientifically as you’re insinuating? Granting I’m going to prove it scientifically, please suggest the method (exclude the common sense spin please.)”

          Your comment –

          “It’s just a simple task of arithmetic called COUNTING. So if you don’t have figures to show, you have nothing but CLAIM”

          ———————————–

          (So it’s not anymore scientific but a simple arithmetic.

          I can tell you that at least seven commenters here were not commenting here anymore because I refuted them. I can confirm four of them I can say I directly caused.

          So I showed you the figure. Now what? Show you who they are?

          I can show you who they are but if I’ve done that, WOULD THAT SETTLE YOUR SIMPLE ARITHMETIC THING?

          Do I have to read between the lines or is it a common sense thing again?)

        2. @ Trosp

          “May I ask how your name-calling should be treated?”

          Still stuck on that “name-calling” issue triggered by benignO’s MAN-VOICE name-calling? LOL

          “Do I have to read between the lines or is it a common sense thing again?”

          So you still haven’t figured that out? LOL

          “So I showed you the figure. Now what? Show you who they are?”

          Who cares? LOL

          “Please stick around otherwise I’ll be banned here…”

          Again, who cares? LOL

          Now I understand why some posters here stop visiting this blog. They got sick of your redundancy; drowned by your prolixity; and eventually suffered from terminal boredom. 🙂

        3. @princesa

          That’s what I mean.

          You’re just full of hot air. Wala ka kahit isang nasagot. Puro innuendos.

          I just want to prove it to the comment readers and you’ve confirmed it yourself.

          Hindi ka naman nahihiya nyan?

          Stick around and see you again next time.

  23. @ Daido Katsumi

    No name-calling this time? Good. Since you’re still responding from my post, I guess I’m not a “troll” after all.

    “Just because most of us here prefer the rule of law doesn’t mean that we are Corona fanatics.”

    The impeachment trial is the proper forum for prosecuting and defending public officials like Corona who are accused of unlawful activities. And the proceeding is still on going. So what “rule of law” are you talking about?

    “The purpose of this impeachment trial instigated by none other than PNoy himself, was to get rid of him… by any means necessary.”

    And you have proven this yourself beyond any reasonable doubt? Right. 🙂

    1. Well, has it been proven BEYOND reasonable doubt that the prosecution/ombudsman did not acquire “evidences” in an illegal manner? That all “evidences” presented are valid, authenticated and properly studied? Does she really have the right to go against due process because it “depends on the complaint”? or baka complainant ang gusto nya iparating?
      There is double standard in the process at which the information was acquired. That is the main concern here.

      1. @ itchyBB

        You got it wrong. I was asking about PNoy who allegedly instigated the impeachment trial. And NOT about the prosecution or ombudsman. So next time you butt in, make sure you understood what the argument is. 🙂

        1. I was talking about the subject matter of the article not PNoy. You have 2 topics in one response, I simply commented on the first. Ikaw na magaling. Happy?

        2. @ itchyBB

          The topics that Daido Katsumi and I we’re SPECIFICALLY discussing were “rule of law…Corona fanatics” and “impeachment trial instigated by…Pnoy” when you’d “butt in”. You were clearly out of the topic. Sorry. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.