8. Testimony of X X X X Given on February 18, 2013.

(Continuation of cross examination of X X X X by

Atty. X X X X ). – The testimony of X X X X given on February 18, 2013 basically shows that:

8.1. X X X X alleged that on April 30, 2010 from 7:00 PM to 12:00 Midnight of the next day at Della Baia
Restaurant both accused X X X X and X X X X told him, “Kung di mo babayran may paglalagyan ka.” He
alleged that both accused said “something like that” and “magkasunod.”

He and accused X X X X arrived there between 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM in two separate cars in a convoy.

X X X X alleged that the two accused were always calling him to collect, thus, in the morning of said date,
he withdrew P300,000.00 to pay X X X X in the evening of said date at the said venue.

X X X X , X X X X and X X X X were sitting on one table. On the next table, their friends were sitting
(referring to xxx and xxx, supra, and the driver of accused X X X X ). They were with the two colonels
because every Friday the two colonels and accused X X X X had a get-together at the venue. The two
colonels were friends of accused X X X X . The distance between the two tables was five meters. The
sequence of the arrival of the personalities was as follows: first, the two colonels; second, X X X X and
accused X X X X ; third, the accused X X X X .

8.2. X X X X alleged that after he paid P300,000.00 to X X X X , the latter “pulled out his gun” (this time a .22
Cal gun, not a Cal. .45 gun as he had previously alleged).

He claimed that the colonels, sitting nearby, did not know what was happening.

He alleged that, prior to that date, “every day I (was) being threatened” by the two accused to pay.

X X X X did not offer any concrete details and positive proofs of the alleged “daily threats”.

9. Testimony of X X X X Given on July 15, 2013. (Cross examination by Atty. xxx, former counsel for
accused X X X X ).– The testimony of X X X X given on July 15, 2013 basically shows that:

9.1. X X X X alleged that accused X X X X and X X X X arranged a meeting with him on April 30, 2010 at
Delia Baia on Macapagal Ave., Xxx City (the subject of the grave coercion case). X X X X had been
there many times. He had met the two colonels there many times. X X X X , X X X X and the two colonels
met there every Friday as a get-together. X X X X arrived there with accused X X X X and his driver xxx,
with the two colonels (riding in X X X X ’s car), drove to the venue in a convoy. X X X X had a driver. After
two hours, X X X X arrived.

As per X X X X , they were all occupying ONE TABLE (contrary to the earlier statement of X X X
X that the two colonels occupied a separate table, five meters away). They are all having a
“kwentuhan” on one table. The others were drinking beer. He was drinking pineapple juice.

9.2. X X X X , in a contradiction, this time alleged that the two colonels, et al were on a separate table when
he paid X X X X the sum of P300,000.00 who thereafter allegedly poked his gun at him.

9.3. This time, X X X X claimed that the two accused X X X X and X X X X were with him on one table when
that happened.

9.4. In re: the second charge of grave coercion that allegedly happened on May 15, 2010, X X X X was not
present during the alleged incident. He merely gave the P500,000.00 check to xxx for delivery to X
XXX.

The P500,000.00 check was given by X X X X to X X X X allegedly at “TRINOMA” (Quezon City, outside
the jurisdiction of this Court).
 X X X X alleged the P300,000 he paid X X X X on April 30, 2010 came from his own pocket (from his joint
xxx account with his wife).

9.5. After the April 30, 2010 incident, X X X X did not talk with anybody about it (which was a strange
behavior for a victim of an alleged crime).

9.6. X X X X affirmed that the gun of X X X X was a Cal. 22 handgun (not a Cal. 45 gun). Later, in the same
testimony he changed it to Cal. 45 gun (this time, referring to the NBI entrapment on July 8, 2010).

In fine, X X X X alleged that on April 30, 2010 the gun used by X X X X was a Cal. 22 and that during the
entrapment on July 8, 2010 the gun used by X X X X was a Cal. 45. A glaring contradiction.

9.7. During the NBI entrapment on July 8, 2010, X X X X was at McDonald’s, Macapagal Ave., Xxx City with
X X X X , X X X X , X X X X , and a driver. Accused X X X X came late, he added. They occupied one
table.

9.8. X X X X allegedly threatened X X X X on the same table in the presence of their companions X X X
X , X X X X , X X X X , and a Driver.

9.9. X X X X allegedly asked for the July 8, 2010 meeting. X X X X stated that he coordinated with his
directors to attend it.

10. Testimony of X X X X Given on February 19, 2014. (Continuation of cross examination of X X X

X by Atty. X X X X , new counsel for accused X X X X ). – The testimony of X X X X given on February
19, 2014 basically shows that:

10.1. From July16, 2013 (last date of testimony of X X X X ) up to February 19, 2014 (his current testimony date
then), or a period of seven months, X X X X failed (“forgot” was the word used by X X X X , citing his
hypertension) to write the xxx branch manager to issue a certified copy of his alleged withdrawal slip
showing the alleged withdrawal from his personal account of the amount of P300,000.00 that he paid to X
XXX.

10.2. X X X X promised to submit the next hearing authentic proofs issued by the branch manager showing his
alleged withdrawal of P300,000.00 and P500,000.00 from his personal account to pay X X X X .

10.3. He alleged that he had called many board/management meetings to discuss the P1,000,000.00 loan of X
X X X from X X X X but he could not recall if minutes thereof were recorded.

10.4. He promised to produce the minutes and other corporate records. This promise was not performed
by X X X X until the prosecution rested its case.

(The counsel for X X X X intended to use them as exculpatory proofs in favor of X X X X ).

Note that X X X X , in failing to present the same despite a promise in open court, can be presumed
to have intentionally hidden the same because, if presented, they would be adverse to his claim of
criminal guilt on the part of accused X X X X .

10.5. X X X X did not even know the last name of his Corporate Secretary (xxx), a strange behavior on the
part of a company president. He had to be assisted by his own records.

10.6. X X X X could not offer proofs of any board resolution or formal communication issued by him, as
president, showing that official corporate efforts were made by X X X X to settle and perform their
unpaid loan obligation to X X X X .
 11. Testimony of X X X X Given on June 23, 2014. (Continuation of cross examination of X X X X by
Atty. xxx). – The testimony of X X X X given on June 23, 2014 basically shows that:

11.1. X X X X failed to present authenticated withdrawals slip of his bank proving his alleged withdrawal
of P800,000.00 (in two tranches, i.e., P300,000.00 on April 30, 2010 and P500,000.00 on May 15,
2010) that he had paid X X X X allegedly using his own money. But he presented a bank statement.

11.2. From 2010 to 2014 (when he testified on cross), or for four long years, X X X X did not issue a
demand letter to the board of X X X X to reimburse him the total of P800,000.00 that he had paid to
X X X X allegedly out of his “own money”. A strange behavior for a businessman who must recover
his own losses.

11.3. X X X X likewise did not ask a lawyer to serve such a demand letter to the directors of X X X X .

11.4. X X X X failed to perform his promise to the Court to bring the corporate records of the P1,000,000.00 loan
of X X X X to X X X X and its records of payments, etc.

11.5. After four long years, i.e., 2010 to 2014, X X X X had not taken legal actions to compel the X X X
X directors to reimburse him the P800,000.00 from his “own pocket” that had paid to X X X X . His
excuse was “nagkakagulo na”.

11.6. X X X X had not commenced an action with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to
liquidate X X X X (“inactive” corporation) to recover from its assets, if any, the amount of
P800,000.00 that he had paid X X X X allegedly out of his own pocket.

11.7. As to the alleged incident on April 30, 2010 for grave coercion, as per X X X X , he met X X X X at the
site (Delia Baia Restaurant) at 8:30 PM to 9:00 PM. X X X X arrived at 7:00 PM with X X X X “and
friends” (two colonels, a driver, and another unknown person). X X X X , X X X X , and X X X X talked.
After thirty minutes, they moved to separate table, away from the two colonels, by five meters. This time, X
X X X claimed the venue was twice as big as the courtroom (contrary to his past testimony that it was as
big as the courtroom).

11.8. X X X X said the two colonels were retired. He did not know if they were carrying guns.

11.9. X X X X alleged that X X X X put his gun on the table to coerce him “to pay another P500,000.00.”

11.10. X X X X claimed after paying X X X X P300,000.00, he left because he was allegedly afraid.

Note that in a past testimony, X X X X claimed that he stayed at the venue with the accused and the two
colonels until 12:00 Midnight the next day.

If he was afraid, why did he spend five hours up to midnight to be with the accused X X X X and X
XXX?

11.11.X X X X admitted that he did not report (or cause to be recorded/blottered) the April 30, 2010 grave
coercion incident with, to or in any of the following persons, officers, agencies, or offices on the
same date or the next day or at any reasonable date thereafter:

(a) The two colonels present;

(b) The security guard of the venue. He did not ask the guard to record the incident
his logbook;
(c) The management of the venue. He did not ask the management to give him a copy
of the CCTV video of the incident;
(d) The local barangay with jurisdiction over the venue;
(e) The local police station of Xxx City with jurisdiction over the venue;
(f) Any law enforcement agency.
11.12. X X X X admitted that he reported X X X X and X X X X to the NBI only after two months for purposes
of the July 8, 2010 entrapment.

11.13. X X X X claimed that X X X X and X X X X “conspired” with X X X X to “force” him to pay X X X

X because X X X X and X X X X were telling him to pay X X X X his unpaid loan of P1,000,000.00
to X X X X .

11.14. Other that his bare allegation, X X X X offered no proofs to prove the alleged “conspiracy” and
“force” exerted upon his person by X X X X and X X X X to benefit X X X X other than the following
acts: (a) Going to his home to collect; (b) Calling his phone to collect; (c) “threatening” his family
(without offering the concrete details and proofs thereof); (d) texting him daily to collect; (e) and the
like.

11.15. X X X X claimed that the accused X X X X and X X X X as well as X X X X “banged his gate” but it
is not alleged in the formal Information and the documentary bases thereof. The same thing with the
following allegations: “following him”, “carrying guns”, “creating commotions in the neighborhood”,
“threatening his children” --- all of which are not alleged in the Information and its documentary basis.

11.16. X X X X did not report/blotter in his local barangay or in his local police station in xxx City the alleged
act of “banging the gate” of his house, “threatening his family”, or “threatening visit” to his house.
They do not appear as allegations in the Informations of the instant cases.

11.17. X X X X admitted he did not report to the NBI the April 30, 2010 incident and the May 15, 2010
incident which are the subject matters of the instant cases. He claimed the excuse of fear for such inaction.

It took him two months to do so (which led to the NBI entrapment on July 8, 2010). He admitted he
reported to the NBI only on June 25 to 28, 2010.

11.18. X X X X did not report to the police the April 30, 2010 (when P300,000.00 was paid to X X X X ). He freely
paid a P500,000.00 check to X X X X on May 15, 2010 without seeking police assistance. His excuse was
“fear”. Other th this bare allegation, no concrete proofs exist to prove the same.