PEx Highlights

FIBA FEATURE: Do We Stand a Chance?

Do we really have a shot to make it through? JPM weighs in on the the odds of Gilas Pilipinas in the FIBA World Cup.

read more

MOVIE REVIEW: The Giver

Very promising, but tries too hard to fit in the mold of the Hunger Games/Divergent series.

read more

PHOTOS: Daquis Bags V-League MVP Plum

Wonder who won the other awards? Check out the Shakey's V-League Awarding gallery here!

read more

Calling All Travel Bloggers!

Wanna get featured in PEx-Travel? Share with us your travel blogs and have your entries promoted around PinoyExchange!

read more

Watch 'The Legend Ends' Trailer!

Check out the trailer of the final instalment of the Rurouni Kenshin series, 'The Legend Ends.'

read more

PHOTOS: UE Keep Final Four Dream Alive

Despite not fielding in Roi Sumang, the UE Red Warriors managed to get a 64-55 win over the NU Bulldogs.

read more

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 35
  1. #1

    Arrow US court says Chavit corrupt, testimony in impeachment trial hearsay

    http://www.tribune.net.ph/20021122/h...122.hed01.html

    US court: Chavit corrupt;
    tale hearsay, no substance
    PLUNDER CASE VS ERAP COLLAPSES



    Friday, 11 22, 2002

    The Arroyo administration's plunder case against detained President Joseph Estrada has collapsed, for all intents and purposes.

    A US federal court judged the Philippine government's "star witness" former Ilocos Sur Gov. Luis "Chavit" Singson an "obviously corrupt Philippine official" whose testimony was intimated to be perjurious and clearly "uncorroborated," during the deliberations and in the court order itself.

    The court order granting Charlie "Atong" Ang house arrest on grounds of "insufficient evidence" was released last week in Nevada, and publicized in the Reno Gazette two days ago, or Nov. 20, 2002.


    This judgment of the federal court is contained in an order issued by the US Federal Court in Nevada, granting Ang, a co-accused of Estrada in the plunder case, his petition for a house arrest.

    The court said Ang has been ordered released from prison, founded on the "lack of sufficient basis for the crime of plunder against him, stating the allegations leveled against Ang are based on "sole, uncorroborated testimony of an obviously corrupt Philippine public official (referring to Singson)."

    Documents consisting of impeachment and the anti-graft court transcripts of the testimony of Singson relative to the plunder charges against Estrada were submitted to the US Federal Court to aid it in deliberating the extradition case of Ang, a friend of Estrada.

    It was the same testimony and transcripts of Singson that were the basis of the impeachment complaint against the ousted leader, and the same testimony that was the basis of the Arroyo administration in charging Estrada and his co-accused with plunder, an offense that carries no bail.

    A defense lawyer told the Tribune: "It is clear that the US court found Chavit's testimony to be full of lies, and even saw through Chavit's corrupt ways. If this can't stand in the US court, how can this same testimony stand in the Sandiganbayan? The justices should really think twice and quickly dismiss the plunder case against Mr. Estrada on the basis of insufficient evidence. To continue with this is clearly a mockery of justice."

    The US ruling, under a fair and impartial Philippine court, should have an impact on the plunder case against Estrada and his co-accused, as well as an impact on the extradition case against Manila 6th District Rep. Mark Jimenez, whom the Supreme Court ruled should not be granted bail and should forthwith be jailed, pending court judgment on Jimenez's extradition case.

    Singson has been touted by the prosecution as its star witness against Estrada, alleging that the deposed leader, as a sitting president, had received jueteng payoffs in the millions from him, as the national jueteng collector, as well as claiming that Estrada had collected some P130 million in tobacco excise tax which Singson claimed he and Atong Ang had diverted to benefit Estrada, saying they had been ordered to do so by the former chief executive under a Sinsgon-claimed "special operations racket."

    A Commission on Audit (CoA) report, however, belies the Singson testimony and proves the tobacco excise tax had been regularly diverted by Singson, long before Estrada became president.

    Singson has also been found by CoA to have plundered at least P1 billion in tobacco excise taxes and several complaints have been lodged against him. But the strong documentary evidence presented, however, the Ombudsman dismissed the cases against Singson.

    The star witness offered the very same testimony that was junked by the US Federal Court in Nevada as a pack of lies coming from a corrupt Philippine official before the Senate impeachment court and the Sandiganbayan Special Division.

    Even after Singson underwent cross-examination conducted by the court-appointed defense counsel, the former governor had already admitted in open court that he has no evidence against the detained leader, and that it was only his word he could offer.

    The prosecution has not presented anyone else as its witness to corroborate the testimony of Singson.

    Based on the testimony of Singson, the only person who can corroborate his claims against Estrada is Atong Ang, who has denied the allegations raised by Singson.

    Ang's alleged participation in the plunder by Estrada concerns the alleged jueteng payoffs, the tobacco excise tax diversion charge and the money in the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation which Singson and the prosecution claim comes from the illegal numbers game.

    Two other charges against Estrada involve his alleged bank deposits in the name of Jose Velarde and the commissions alleged to have been received by Estrada on the Best World Resources shares scam.

    The prosecution's other "starwitness" banker Clarissa Ocampo bombed out in court during the cross-examination, admitting that she concluded Estrada is Jose Velarde merely because he had signed as Jose Velarde in investment trust documents.

    Documentary evidence presented by the defense counsels showed that the owner of the Jose Velarde account was Jaime Dichaves, a businessman friend of Estrada.

    It was also shown in court that the documents signed by Estrada were not honored by Equitable PCI Bank because his signature was different from that of Dichaves, signing as Jose Velarde. Besides which, Estrada signed the name Jose Velarde in the space under the heading "Principal, BY" which defense counsels said clearly shows that Estrada was not the principal, but merely representing the principal, Jose Velarde.

    It was also admitted by Ocampo, under cross-examination, that she, too, had signed for and in behalf of the named investment manager.


    To date, after presenting close to 50 witnesses for the prosecution, the government has failed in proving its case of plunder against Estrada. The prosecution panel has failed to prove that Estrada had received jueteng payoffs. Neither has it succeeded in proving that he is Jose Velarde, despite having presented the prosecution's two starwitnesses.

    The US Federal Court in Nevada, which recently granted Ang, a co-accused of Estrada, house arrest, also stated that Ang may be released from detention before Christmas on condition that he post a property bail amounting to $300,000 and demonstrate that this comes from legitimate sources.

    "He has to present documents to indicate the source of the money," Donald Etra, Ang's lawyer was quoted Wednesday by the Reno Gazette-Journal. Etra said he hopes to have the documentation within the next few weeks.

    A court spokesman said US District Magistrate Lawrence Leavitt in Las Vegas agreed last Friday to release Ang with conditions, including electronic home monitoring and the surrender of Ang's passport which has cancelled by the Philippine government last January.

    Lawyers interviewed by the Tribune said they were not surprised at the grounds cited by the US judge in granting Ang house arrest while he awaits an extradition hearing scheduled for June 24 this year.

    "Even a freshman law student can tell that the testimony of Singson was hearsay and clearly uncorroborated that is also full of holes and strictly speaking, cannot stand up in court," said one lawyer.

    Another stated: "It's incredible that the judges even gave it their time of day, when Singson's testimony is clearly useless."

    Estrada dismissed all his lawyers and refuses to recognize the court's jurisdiction over him, saying he cannot expect to find justice in a court of law in this country, as the the courts are biased against him and politically partisan. NCO

  2. #2

    Post

    RP ignored Ang’s claims
    of Chavit’s hearsay proof
    US COURT SAYS


    http://www.tribune.net.ph/20021123/h...123.hed01.html

    By Dona Policar, Benjamin B. Pulta and Sherwin C. Olaes
    Saturday, 11 23, 2002

    There is more to the US Federal Court order in the case of Charlie "Atong" Ang than what was carried in the news reports abroad.

    The US court, in its ruling allowing the grant of bail and house arrest of Ang, a co-accused in the plunder case the government filed against detained President Joseph Estrada, made mention of the fact that the Philippine government did not challenge the assertion of Ang and his lawyers before the court that serious charges filed against Ang in the Philippines are based solely on the testimony of a "demonstrably corrupt governor of a Philippine province," referring to former Ilocos Sur Gov. Luis "Chavit" Singson.

    The court was earlier quoted by news reports as having deemed that Singson was a "sole and uncorrorborated testimony" that lacks sufficient basis for the crime of plunder against Ang.

    Interestingly, the court ruling also made mention of the same "demonstrably corrupt governor of a Philipine province (referring to Singson who) is also the "principal witness against Estrada."

    It was also insinuated in the same court ruling that the Philippine government has made it difficult for Ang to acquire evidence, comprising the testimony of Singson, main accuser of Ang, in the plunder charges, saying "whether there is probable cause to believe that Ang committed the crime of plunder will rest entirely on Singson's credibility" which the same US court already judged to be tainted, with Singson being a polluted witness.

  3. #3

    Post Re: US court says Chavit corrupt, testimony in impeachment trial hearsay

    Originally posted by krove


    A US federal court judged the Philippine government's "star witness" former Ilocos Sur Gov. Luis "Chavit" Singson an "obviously corrupt Philippine official" whose testimony was intimated to be perjurious and clearly "uncorroborated," during the deliberations and in the court order itself.

    The court order granting Charlie "Atong" Ang house arrest on grounds of "insufficient evidence" was released last week in Nevada, and publicized in the Reno Gazette two days ago, or Nov. 20, 2002.


    This judgment of the federal court is contained in an order issued by the US Federal Court in Nevada, granting Ang, a co-accused of Estrada in the plunder case, his petition for a house arrest.

    The court said Ang has been ordered released from prison, founded on the "lack of sufficient basis for the crime of plunder against him, stating the allegations leveled against Ang are based on "sole, uncorroborated testimony of an obviously corrupt Philippine public official (referring to Singson)."
    total mahilig naman sa hearsay si Krove at the expense of his beloved tribune, bakit di na natin komplitohin.


    http://www.manilatimes.net/national/...21122top3.html
    Friday, November 22, 2002


    Nevada court won’t stop Erap
    pal from posting $300,000 bail


    A federal district court in Las Vegas, Nevada, has allowed Charlie “Atong” Ang, a close friend of ousted President Joseph Estrada, to post a $300,000, the ABS-CBN News Channel reported yesterday.

    Ang, 44, fled to the US at the height of the Estrada impeachment trial in 2001. He has been charged with plunder along with Estrada before the Sandiganbayan.

    Ang was arrested a year ago in a Las Vegas casino and had been in detention while waiting for extradition.

    ABS-CBN said that US District Magistrate Lawrence R. Leavitt ordered the confiscation of Ang’s passport.

    Ang has been seeking political asylum in the US, but Department of Justice officials are confident his petition would be denied.

    His lawyer said Ang believes he would be in danger if he returned to the Philippines.

    He has been living with his family in Los Angeles and Las Vegas since January.

    Ang is accused of receiving kickbacks on tobacco excise taxes and giving them to Estrada, according to documents filed in federal court in Las Vegas.

    He is also accused of being the go-between for payoffs from illegal gambling operators.

  4. #4

    Post

    Ano kaya ang connection nitong $300,000 bail ni Pareng Atong sa withdrawal ni Pareng Erap ....hmmmm

    http://www.manilatimes.net/national/...21123top7.html

    Erap’s plea to free dollar account nixed

    By Ma. Theresa Torres, Reporter

    THE Court of Appeals (CA) yesterday dismissed for lack of merit the petition of ousted President Joseph Estrada to lift the freeze order on his dollar account at Citibank Greenhills and to pursue the criminal case he had filed against ranking officials of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR).

  5. #5

    Post

    halata naman corrupt din si chavit kaya ayaw niya sabihin ang totoo at baka masabit din ***

  6. #6

    Post Re: US court says Chavit corrupt, testimony in impeachment trial hearsay

    Originally posted by krove
    [b]The prosecution's other "starwitness" banker Clarissa Ocampo bombed out in court during the cross-examination, admitting that she concluded Estrada is Jose Velarde merely because he had signed as Jose Velarde in investment trust documents.
    Krove, if she (or anyone else) were to conclude otherwise, it could not be just from poor judgement. From the wording, it seems to be the implicit contention of Estrada's counsel that one should not recognize a sane man observed to have signed a name as the person behind that name. Ocampo would be insane to have concluded this. Either that, or the President was certifiably so at the time. Since Ocampo had signed her own legal name ("Ocampo") on the documents, most likely then the latter?

    This point is so clearly negative to Estrada's interest, I must assume the statement was mistakenly worded. You might want to re-check the source of your posting.


    The court order granting Charlie "Atong" Ang house arrest on grounds of "insufficient evidence" was released last week in Nevada, and publicized in the Reno Gazette two days ago, or Nov. 20, 2002

    If some US Court determined that Singson is no Saint, that's something everyone knows anyway given Singson's association with Estrada. But I am puzzled, nothing in the Reno Gazette article http://www.rgj.com/news/stories/html...1/20/28516.php
    indicates a US Court has determined that both Atong Ang and Estrada are probably innocent of the charges in Philippine Courts. Because if an American Judge thought so, he would have noted that Atong Ang is the possible victim of a political vendetta and therefore likely eligible for political asylum. But as it is reported he will be ineligible for that status, it means American officials may not think his flight from the Philippines was anything other than an attempt to escape Justice. Which fact would indicate probable guilt on its own merits. Apparently, someone at the Tribune is reading in too much between the lines.

    If anything, it's most likely Atong Ang will eventually be extradited after our officials make the case at the hearings. It's just that Ang is being allowed the uniquely American privilege to set bail (pay for some freedom prior to judicial proceedings) in the meantime. And the sizable bail of USD300,00 is an indication the Judge thinks there's an equally big risk that Atong Ang may flee again.
    Last edited by benjiep; Nov 24, 2002 at 05:15 AM.

  7. #7

    Post

    Basahin mo ng mabuti yung tribune article lacroix. Ito yung excerpt sa Nov. 22, 2002 article.

    The US Federal Court in Nevada, which recently granted Ang, a co-accused of Estrada, house arrest, also stated that Ang may be released from detention before Christmas on condition that he post a property bail amounting to $300,000 and demonstrate that this comes from legitimate sources.
    oh btw, you do realize that the other article you are quoting came from the manila times right, which is owned and operated by GMA's image maker?

    just asking.

    Krove, if she (or anyone else) were to conclude otherwise, it could not be just from poor judgement. From the wording, it seems to be the implicit contention of Estrada's counsel that one should not recognize a sane man observed to have signed a name as the person behind that name. Ocampo would be insane to have concluded this. Either that, or the President was certifiably so at the time. Since Ocampo had signed her own legal name ("Ocampo") on the documents, most likely then the latter?
    if erap is the owner of the account, he, like ocampo, would have signed his real name on the documents. Besides which, Estrada signed the name Jose Velarde in the space under the heading "Principal, BY" which defense counsels said clearly shows that Estrada was not the principal, but merely representing the principal, Jose Velarde.

    Benjiep, 2 facts:

    1) Erap is not the owner of the velarde account. Si Dichaves ang mayari nito.

    2) the documents signed by Estrada were not honored by Equitable PCI Bank because his signature was different from that of Dichaves, signing as Jose Velarde.

    I read the reno gazette article before i started this topic and it is incomplete. If you want to get the complete details, go read the tribune.

  8. #8

    Post

    Originally posted by krove
    Basahin mo ng mabuti yung tribune article lacroix. Ito yung excerpt sa Nov. 22, 2002 article.



    oh btw, you do realize that the other article you are quoting came from the manila times right, which is owned and operated by GMA's image maker?

    just asking.
    krove, you can put 2 and 2 together.
    tribune at malaya is maka erap
    manila times is maka gma
    reno gazette...kanino kaya yon

    Basahin mo ang tribune, halatang may galit. Basahin mo ang manila times, simple lang.

    alam ng buong mundo yan. Present the 2 sides. Masyado ka namang halata guinigi-it mo yong mahal mong tribune. Wala namang nagbabasa at nilalangaw na sa bangketa.


    I read the reno gazette article before i started this topic and it is incomplete. If you want to get the complete details, go read the tribune.
    Incomplete??? Lumang tugtugin na ang nakasulat doon. Ano ba ang bagong issue na nakasulat sa mahal mong tribune. Di ba ang bail ni mahal mong si Atong. The rest ay puro pabalik balik lang.
    Abangan mo na lang sa mid June kase meron ng cell mate si idol.

  9. Advertisement

  10. #9

    Post

    Originally posted by krove
    if erap is the owner of the account, he, like ocampo, would have signed his real name on the documents. Besides which, Estrada signed the name Jose Velarde in the space under the heading "Principal, BY" which defense counsels said clearly shows that Estrada was not the principal, but merely representing the principal, Jose Velarde...

    Ms. Ocampo is merely the fiduciary agent authorized to represent both the bank's and the client's interests in managing the account. This is standard practice, obvious to anyone who's ever dealt with banks and opened accounts.

    OTOH, it's a pretty common understanding that an individual acting as signatory in a transaction of this type must have a great deal of interest in it. For that individual is a client, after all. Moreso in this matter as the transaction leads to a big, new account, and Estrada is the only person identified as having affixed his signature on the instructions for its creation. The question is why the President attempted to sign off under an assumed name, when he could very well have signed in his own legal name, and still have done his "bit" representing Mr. Dichaves as he explains. It's almost as if Estrada didn't wan't to be recognized on record as a signatory with direct access, "Principal" or not, to the invested wealth. Hence the alias?

    And as for the idea of a President of the Republic representing the interests of a private individual in a furtive financial transaction using an assumed name, let's leave the propriety and legality of that to the judgement of others.


    ...1) Erap is not the owner of the velarde account. Si Dichaves ang mayari nito...
    This is the point in contention in the case, subject to interpretation according to Law as well as industry practice. Indications in both areas are rather negative for Estrada's explanation.


    ...2) the documents signed by Estrada were not honored by Equitable PCI Bank because his signature was different from that of Dichaves, signing as Jose Velarde...
    Interesting take. Does it mean a signature on a legal document by the President of the Republic of the Philippines was deemed unacceptable by fellow Citizens tasked to manage the the President's finances? What on Earth did the President do to cast doubt on the the legitimacy of his instructions... unless his instructions somehow weren't legitimate, hmmm....?


    ...I read the reno gazette article before i started this topic and it is incomplete. If you want to get the complete details, go read the tribune...
    Since the events referred to supposedly transpired in the US, I naturally wanted independent corroboration of the Tribune report from the US source you pointed to. Other than the terms for Ang's procedural bail set by the US Court, there was nothing else. Rather inexplicable, you understand. I'm afraid this is an example of why caution is indicated in reading stories from the Tribune.

  11. #10

    Post

    If some US Court determined that Singson is no Saint, that's something everyone knows anyway given Singson's association with Estrada.
    He is no saint, and he's also incapable of telling the truth either. Check this out benjiep.

    ====================================================

    Chavit caught lying; perjury raps readied

    By Gerry Baldo
    Thursday, 08 22, 2002

    http://www.tribune.net.ph/20020822/h...822.hed02.html

    The government's case against detained President Joseph Estrada was headed for a virtual collapse as former Ilocos Sur Gov. Luis "Chavit" Singson, the government's principal witness, openly disowned his earlier testimonies on the alleged delivery of jueteng payoffs to the ousted leader, opening Singson up on formal charges of perjury.

    Under cross-examination by the Sandiganbayan Special Division's court-appointed counsel for the defense, Prospero Crescini, the former governor denied he went to Polk Street to deliver the jueteng money and said he only delivered the money to Estrada in only two places: The presidential residence in Malacañang and at P. Guevarra in San Juan.

    "I never went to Polk Street to deliver the money. I only delivered money at the presidential residence and at P. Guevarra," Singson told Crescini.

    It will be recalled that Singson had earlier testified that, other than the jueteng money he had delivered to Estrada at his home in Polk Street, he had also claimed that he, along with Charlie "Atong" Ang, delivered some P130 million in cash to Estrada at his Polk Street residence, representing the tobacco excise tax funds.

    A transcript of his testimony during the impeachment trial at the Senate shows there were two instances where Singson admitted to having gone to Polk to deliver the money. One was his admission based on the questioning by Sen. Loren Legarda, which he reiterated when he was questioned by then private House prosecutor Simeon Marcelo.

    In both instances, he admitted having delivered money to Estrada at Polk Street.
    (Huli Ka!!!)

    Lawyers following the Estrada trial before the anti-graft court told the Tribune that it was clear Chavit was lying through his teeth.

    "Even the justices are not convinced by his testimony," they said, pointing out that for the past three hearings, the justices have been directly cross examining Singson.

    They pointed out that it is easy for lawyers and justices to quickly spot witnesses who lie under oath.

    "If you are telling the truth, no matter how many questions are asked of you repeatedly under cross examination, and no matter how a lawyer would try to confuse the witness, if he is telling the truth, the answers would be consistent, because, to one who is telling the truth, and to one who stands as witness to something that happened, this would be very clear in the witness' mind. He may forget the exact time, but never the place where the crime was supposed to have been committed," they pointed out.

    Defense lawyers said Singson's testimony has opened a case for perjury against him because the former Ilocos Sur governor has completely departed from his earlier testimony.

    [b]Crescini cross examined Singson yesterday and pressed Singson on why he gave a conflicting testimony, Singson retorted: "I don't know why I made such a statement."[b](LMAO!!!)

    At the aborted impeachment trial on Dec. 13, 2000, Singson told the court, under oath, that he went to Polk Street to deliver money to the President which he had allegedly collected from jueteng operators.

    It was on this occasion that Singson said he saw Estrada and Charlie "Atong" Ang quarreling over a sugar deal.

  12. #11

    Post

    If some US Court determined that Singson is no Saint, that's something everyone knows anyway given Singson's association with Estrada.
    He is no saint, and he's also incapable of telling the truth either. Sooooo... the Polk Street thing NEVER REALLY HAPPENED, chavit?!?! LMAO!!!

    ====================================================

    Chavit caught lying; perjury raps readied

    By Gerry Baldo
    Thursday, 08 22, 2002

    http://www.tribune.net.ph/20020822/h...822.hed02.html

    The government's case against detained President Joseph Estrada was headed for a virtual collapse as former Ilocos Sur Gov. Luis "Chavit" Singson, the government's principal witness, openly disowned his earlier testimonies on the alleged delivery of jueteng payoffs to the ousted leader, opening Singson up on formal charges of perjury.

    Under cross-examination by the Sandiganbayan Special Division's court-appointed counsel for the defense, Prospero Crescini, the former governor denied he went to Polk Street to deliver the jueteng money and said he only delivered the money to Estrada in only two places: The presidential residence in Malacañang and at P. Guevarra in San Juan.

    "I never went to Polk Street to deliver the money. I only delivered money at the presidential residence and at P. Guevarra," Singson told Crescini.

    It will be recalled that Singson had earlier testified that, other than the jueteng money he had delivered to Estrada at his home in Polk Street, he had also claimed that he, along with Charlie "Atong" Ang, delivered some P130 million in cash to Estrada at his Polk Street residence, representing the tobacco excise tax funds.

    A transcript of his testimony during the impeachment trial at the Senate shows there were two instances where Singson admitted to having gone to Polk to deliver the money. One was his admission based on the questioning by Sen. Loren Legarda, which he reiterated when he was questioned by then private House prosecutor Simeon Marcelo.

    In both instances, he admitted having delivered money to Estrada at Polk Street.
    (Huli Ka!!!)

    Lawyers following the Estrada trial before the anti-graft court told the Tribune that it was clear Chavit was lying through his teeth.

    "Even the justices are not convinced by his testimony," they said, pointing out that for the past three hearings, the justices have been directly cross examining Singson.

    They pointed out that it is easy for lawyers and justices to quickly spot witnesses who lie under oath.

    "If you are telling the truth, no matter how many questions are asked of you repeatedly under cross examination, and no matter how a lawyer would try to confuse the witness, if he is telling the truth, the answers would be consistent, because, to one who is telling the truth, and to one who stands as witness to something that happened, this would be very clear in the witness' mind. He may forget the exact time, but never the place where the crime was supposed to have been committed," they pointed out.

    Defense lawyers said Singson's testimony has opened a case for perjury against him because the former Ilocos Sur governor has completely departed from his earlier testimony.

    [b]Crescini cross examined Singson yesterday and pressed Singson on why he gave a conflicting testimony, Singson retorted: "I don't know why I made such a statement."[b](LMAO!!!)

    At the aborted impeachment trial on Dec. 13, 2000, Singson told the court, under oath, that he went to Polk Street to deliver money to the President which he had allegedly collected from jueteng operators.

    It was on this occasion that Singson said he saw Estrada and Charlie "Atong" Ang quarreling over a sugar deal.

  13. #12

    Post

    Chavit faces plunder raps
    for squander of tax money


    By Dona Policar
    Thursday, 08 29, 2002

    Former Ilocos Sur Gov. Luis "Chavit" Singson once again failed to directly link deposed President Joseph Estrada to accusations that the former leader pocketed P130 million of the P200-million tobacco excise tax intended for the province of Ilocos Sur.

    Aside from admitting that he has no evidence to back up his claim against Estrada, Singson may also face plunder charges for the squander of Ilocos Sur's tobacco tax money.

    This possibility was raised by Associate Justice Edilberto Sandoval who asked Singson why he should not be equally punished for directly participating in the diversion of the more than P130 million in tobacco excise tax, part of which the former Ilocos Sur governor claimed to have given to Estrada.

    During yesterday's resumption of the cross examination at the Sandiganbayan, Singson admitted he had falsified documents pertaining to the release of the money and managed to withdraw the P130 million from different bank branches in Ilocos Sur and Metro Manila.

    "Are you not aware that you have committed an illegal act?" Sandoval asked to which Singson replied: "I don't know your honor (since) I am not a lawyer."


    LOL LMAO!!!

  14. #13

    Post

    Originally posted by krove
    He is no saint, and he's also incapable of telling the truth either...
    All the more reason to wonder why the President of the Republic of the Philippines was associating with a man of Mr. Singson's reputation so very, very closely. You'd think the former President would have been very careful in his choice of drinking buddies and midnight associates. But he had to choose of all people a gambling lord known for distributing payoffs to high government officials. All the more reason to listen to Singson's tell-all, with his unique insider's knowledge. And everytime the Defense attacks Singson's character, they impugn just as badly Estrada's reputation in this manner

    On how thieves can be the downfall of each other, an example can be drawn from one of the most celebrated criminal cases in US history (made into a movie even), the prosecution of Chicago mafia Boss Al Capone. When the Untouchables got Al Capone's accountant to testify against his Mob Boss, his statements weren't all that perfect or consistent either. Which didn't prevent the Prosecutors from making the case and imprisoning Al Capone for good at Alcatraz.

  15. #14

    Post

    Interesting take. Does it mean a signature on a legal document by the President of the Republic of the Philippines was deemed unacceptable by fellow Citizens tasked to manage the the President's finances? What on Earth did the President do to cast doubt on the the legitimacy of his instructions... unless his instructions somehow weren't legitimate, hmmm....?
    Occam's razor, benjiep, there's a simpler explanation. Erap does not own the account, so the signature is not accepted because it does not match Dichaves' own sig.

    It the end, si Dichaves rin ang pumirma para maayos na ang transaction.

    Since the events referred to supposedly transpired in the US, I naturally wanted independent corroboration of the Tribune report from the US source you pointed to. Other than the terms for Ang's procedural bail set by the US Court, there was nothing else. Rather inexplicable, you understand. I'm afraid this is an example of why caution is indicated in reading stories from the Tribune.
    Okay, how about this

    one.http://www.inq7.net/nat/2002/nov/23/nat_6-1.htm

    but benjiep, if you look at the 2 articles posted above, your chavit singson seems to have a difficult time telling the truth. The polk street incident never happened pala. paano na yan? eh yan pa naman ang gagamitin ni chavit para ipakulong si atong ang.

  16. #15

    Post

    All the more reason to wonder why the President of the Republic of the Philippines was associating with a man of Mr. Singson's reputation so very, very closely.
    So ano ngayon, guilt by association na? LOL LMAO.

    it's desperation time...

    You'd think the former President would have been very careful in his choice of drinking buddies and midnight associates.
    nice talk benjiep, so what do you think of GMA's cozy relationship with the untouchable bong pineda?


    And just in case you didn't know, when the Untouchables got Al Capone's mafia accountant to testify against the Chicago Mob Boss, the accountant's statements weren't all that perfect or consistent either. Which didn't prevent the Prosecutors from making the case and imprisoning Al Capone for good at Alcatraz.
    come on, benjie... the polk street incident is one of the key chavit singson testimonies... remember the part where singson said mr. ang carried this sackful of millions by himself (dati pa medyo duda na ako doon eh, i mean, kaya ba ni ang yung ng magisa?) hindi ba tobacco excise tax ang dala niya (130 million pesos if i'm correct)... to be delivered to the estrada family... so hindi pala nangyari yon?

    so saan napunta ang 130 million peso excise tax?

    bakit nagalit si chavit kay erap? because gusto na niyang magbagong buhay? (eh bakit malakas pa rin ang jueteng sa ilocos sur at bakit siya pa rin ang itinuturo ng mga obispo doon as responsible for the flourishing of jueteng in that region)

    o baka naman gusto na ni erap na matigil na ang jueteng kaya nag propose siya ng bingo 2 ball na si atong ang ang may hawak at napikon si chavit dahil mawawala na ang "livelihood" niya?

  17. #16

    Post

    Originally posted by krove
    Occam's razor, benjiep, there's a simpler explanation. Erap does not own the account, so the signature is not accepted because it does not match Dichaves' own sig.

    It the end, si Dichaves rin ang pumirma para maayos na ang transaction.
    Which begs the real question, what is the business of the President of the Republic of the Philippines in obtaining signatory's rights under an assumed name in a furtive financial transaction which gives him a client's access to massive wealth. Especially when the source of wealth is publicly claimed by a known associate of his. Note that ownership is mainly an issue on the origin the funds and on recourse for the results, while signatory's rights gives Erap direct control over adding to, withdrawing from, and restructuring the account as he sees fit. Which, if you're honest about it, is all that really matters as far as money and greed is concerned. Unless Estarda's defenders are prepared to say he did it all out of altruistic motives?

    What else could it have been but a subterfuge to mask hidden wealth? Whether or not he is the principal may or may not affect the case against Mr. Dichaves. But it does not alter the fundamental issue of whether he as the highest public official of the land should go unpunished for behavior unbecoming a President. Occam's razor does not select one variable over others to make its edge, it covers all facts and considers them in total, then cuts accordingly. Which, Estrada's case, may turn out to be very unkind indeed.


    The Administration's stated response seems to be in keeping with my own observations. That the procedural bail is not a setback but rather an option granted by the US Court in the extradition process, which will proceed anyway. Matter of fact, you ought to know most civil and many criminal proceedings allow posting of bail. A unique feature of the American Justice system, which tries to err on the side of freedom wherever possible. You also ought to know that the case will tried in Philippine courts as provided by treaty. And as reported by the Inquirer, by treaty the US Court cannot assume jurisdiction and judge on the merits of the case. Neither will it consider the one thing which would allow it to deny Philippine process of Law, which is to grant Ang political asylum and therefore refuge from that process.



    but benjiep, if you look at the 2 articles posted above, your chavit singson seems to have a difficult time telling the truth. The polk street incident never happened pala. paano na yan? eh yan pa naman ang gagamitin ni chavit para ipakulong si atong ang.
    Pls refer to my example on Al Capone above.

  18. #17

    Post

    Originally posted by krove
    So ano ngayon, guilt by association na? LOL LMAO.

    it's desperation time...
    Not just guilt. Worse, reputation. And it truly is desperation time, but maybe not for whom you think.


    nice talk benjiep, so what do you think of GMA's cozy relationship with the untouchable bong pineda?
    Have nothing on that, but then that's someone else's theory, not mine. From what is (partly) verifiable, GMA knowingly or not may have facilitated shipments of "relief" goods for local commercial sale under DSWD auspices. You may want to look into this, but it's not something you'd consider charges of plunder for.


    come on, benjie... the polk street incident is one of the key chavit singson testimonies... remember the part where singson said mr. ang carried this sackful of millions by himself (dati pa medyo duda na ako doon eh, i mean, kaya ba ni ang yung ng magisa?) hindi ba tobacco excise tax ang dala niya (130 million pesos if i'm correct)...
    It's possible Singson has contradicted himself at times in detailed testimony, likely because he's trying to protect other persons just as equally guilty. Starting with himself. Should we be surprised, given his reputation? Self-incrimination is denied by due process of Law, after all. But he has not yet reversed his claim that Estrada expected the money in payment, has he?

  19. #18

    Thumbs up

    But he has not yet reversed his claim that Estrada expected the money in payment, has he?
    DUH!!!

    LOL LMAO!!!

  20. #19

    Post

    I take it you're at a loss for words, whereas all I have at the moment are questions. In any case, it's time for rest...

  21. #20

    Lightbulb

    It's possible Singson has contradicted himself at times
    now THAT is an understatement, benjiep.
    Last edited by krove; Nov 24, 2002 at 07:07 PM.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Advertisement


Hot Topics

GILAS:

Gallant Gilas Pilipinas drops to 0-3 after 85-81 defeat vs Argentina

Gallant Gilas Pilipinas drops to 0-3 after 85-81 defeat vs Argentina

read more
SHOWBIZ:

Veteran actor Mark Gil passes away at 52

Veteran actor Mark Gil passes away at 52

read more
MUSIC:

Eraserheads to release two new songs

Eraserheads to release two new songs

read more
SPORTS:

Philippine Army crowned V-League Open Conference champions

Philippine Army crowned V-League Open Conference champions

read more
UAAP:

Red Warriors keep Final Four dream alive with 64-55 win over Bulldogs

Red Warriors keep Final Four dream alive with 64-55 win over Bulldogs

read more
CHIT CHAT:

Anong masasabi mo sa Anti-Selfie Bill?

Anong masasabi mo sa Anti-Selfie Bill?

read more

Advertisement