Bank deposits’ fate hangs

Admissibility as proof decided tomorrow

By JP LOPEZ

The Senate impeachment court will hold a caucus tomorrow to decide on the admissibility of the testimonies of officials of Philippine Savings Bank (PS Bank) and the bank accounts of Chief Justice Renato Corona that they presented as evidence.

Majority leader Vicente Sotto III has said senator-judges would also discuss the motion of Corona’s defense lawyers for the court to "suppress, exclude, and expunge" from its record all evidence pertaining to his accounts with PS Bank.

Corona’s defense team, in its 33-page motion, has said that the subpoena for bank records were based on "falsified documents or unlawful searches."

They specifically asked the court to disregard and remove from its records the evidence presented in relation to the subpoena issued on Feb. 6 and 9, 2012 addressed to PS Bank Katipunan branch manager Anabelle Tiongson.

The Supreme Court has issued a temporary restraining order on the disclosure of the chief magistrate’s dollar accounts.

The hearing abruptly stopped Wednesday last week after Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr. announced the prosecution was resting its case and was dropping Articles 1, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the impeachment complaint.

The prosecution nevertheless reserved its right to present evidence on their allegations on Corona’s alleged dollar accounts (Article II).

It also abandoned efforts to ask Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno to testify on Article VII on the issuance of temporary restraining order after the justice failed to reply to their invitation.

The prosecution is still awaiting the High Court’s decision on their motion to lift the TRO on Corona’s dollar accounts.

Former SC Associate Justice Serafin Cuevas, lead defense counsel, said should theimpeachment court decide to admit as evidence Corona’s bank records and the testimonies of PS Bank president Pascual Garcia III and Katipunan branch manager Annabelle Tiongson, they have no other recourse but to seek reprieve from the Supreme Court.

He insisted that the bank records were obtained illegally after the prosecution produced a supposedly leaked document to gain access to them.

"Our remedy probably will be to challenge the order of admission by way of a petition of certiorari before the Supreme Court," Cuevas said in a TV interview.

Cuevas however conceded their petition might be overtaken by "the exigencies of the time and the manner by which the trial is being conducted."

"Even if we challenge it before the Supreme Court, the trial continues. Prior to the resolution, the case may be terminated and it will give us no use whatsoever," he added.

Tranquil Salvador III, another defense spokesman, said the House panel effectively amended its articles of impeachment with the dropping of five articles of impeachment, leaving only articles 2, 3 and 7.

"The waiver of presentation of evidence and dropping of the five articles has serious repercussions on the case since the notice may result to the amendment of theimpeachment complaint without conformity of the 188 congressmen who signed the same," the lawyer said.

He said the impeachment court may allow the reservation of the prosecution on Corona’s dollar account subject to the decision of the Supreme on the petition lodged by PS Bank.

"However, in ordinary court rules and practice, reservation after you have rested your case is not allowed," he pointed out.

Defense counsel Ramon Esguerra said the prosecution nevertheless could still pursue the issue of alleged foreign currency deposits during rebuttal, "that is, after the defense presented its evidence."

But this is based on the assumption that the SC will eventually and ultimately render a decision adverse to PS Bank, he said.

Cuevas said there is no need to present Corona’s dollar accounts. "What are we going to contradict by presenting it?"

Corona is accused of failing to truthfully declare some of his assets in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN). His bank records showed he had P31.7 million in PS Bank and Bank of the Philippine Islands in December 2010 while declaring only P3.5 million in his SALN for that year.

The defense panel also said that if there is a need for Corona to testify, he will be presented to answer the allegations against him.

"Our consistent reply from Day 1 to that question (of Corona testifying) has been this: If necessary, we will present the Chief Justice in the Impeachment Court. But if our evidence is enough to let the people and Senator-Judges hear the full story without his taking the stand, then we will advise him accordingly," Salvador said.

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, the presiding justice, has said it would be best for Corona, the impeachment court and the country if the Chief Magistrate will appear in the trial.

Enrile’s call was supported by Senators Sergio Osmeña III, Lito Lapid and Gregorio Honasan that Corona’s testimony would be crucial to the process of arriving at a decision to convict or acquit him on the remaining three charges.

"He is the only one who can explain the bank accounts. Who else can explain all those bank accounts except him? He is supposed to have opened them," Enrile said.

However, he said the court would not issue a subpoena to compel Corona to appear.

Osmeña said Corona is "the best person to explain the bank entries and the leaving out of certain items in his Statement of Asssets, Liabilities and Net Worth."

Honasan acknowledged that there would be "risks and benefits" in Corona’s personal appearance at his impeachment trial. "That is a judgment that only the defense team can make, and of course (Corona) personally. But, I think the issues have gone beyond the Chief Justice. I am more concerned with the aftermath."

Speaker Feliciano "Sonny" Belmonte Jr. said the prosecution panel has a solid case because Corona’s failure to declare his SALN is "unexplainable."

"Without an iota of doubt, the prosecution fought a very good fight and finished the course to convict the Chief Justice," he said. – With Evangeline de Vera and Wendell Vigilia