No proof on ‘45 assets’ of Renato Corona

The prosecution’s disclosure on Thursday that it would be unable to present proof of Chief Justice Renato Corona’s supposed 45 properties has put it in “a very difficult situation,” according to the defense.

“It’s good that [this is] being brought up now. The truth is now out,” Ramon Esguerra, one of Corona’s lawyers, told the Philippine Daily Inquirer during a break in the 11th day of the trial.

Esguerra said some of the supposed properties were “actually not [registered] under Corona’s name, particularly the one in McKinley Hill [in Taguig City].”

Asked about the effect of the admission of the House lead prosecutor, Representative Niel Tupas Jr., vis-à-vis the allegations stated in Article 2, Esguerra said: “I don’t want to make any judgment. But they are now faced with a very difficult situation.”

In reply to a question, Tranquil Salvador III, spokesperson for the defense, said the prosecution’s admission was unexpected.

“We did not expect it because we just live by the day,” Salvador said. “But we are surprised that sometimes some things happen that favor us. We don’t claim victory, but this is good for us and the country.”

Salvador also said it was “a happy day” for the defense “because we have senators who are able to rise beyond political affiliation.”

“We hope this will continue in the succeeding days,” he told reporters.

Eduardo de los Angeles, also of the defense, pointed out that Corona only owned five properties “and three of four parking slots.”

“We also checked the list when [the prosecutors] claimed that Corona had 45 properties. We found out that there was double counting and that some titles were already canceled,” De los Angeles said. “That’s why we don’t understand why the canceled titles were still in the list.”

De los Angeles said the prosecutors should have presented an official of the Land Registration Authority (LRA) if they wanted to prove that Corona was indeed the owner of the properties listed.

Trial outside faster

The prosecutors got a beating of sorts from the senator-judges for supposedly continuing to argue their case and presenting evidence against the Chief Justice outside the impeachment court.

Senators Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada and Francis Escudero put Tupas on the spot for announcing before the opening of the trial the purported 45 properties owned by Corona and his family.

Senator Gregorio Honasan said both the defense and the prosecution should be “bound” by an existing order that they not discuss the merits of the case before the public and the media.

“Apparently, the trial outside the courtroom is proceeding faster than the trial inside the court,” he said.

Under questioning by Escudero, Tupas denied that the list of Corona’s alleged 45 properties was divulged by the prosecution. He said the disclosure was made in a letter from the LRA, a copy of which was attached to the prosecution’s request for subpoena submitted on January 12.

Gotcha

“So far, we have presented 21 properties [including parking lots]. We might present more. But we are not bound by [those] 45 properties from the [LRA],” Tupas told the court.

When the trial resumed after a 15-minute break, Estrada confronted Tupas on his denial that the prosecution had nothing to do with the release of the LRA information.

During the break, Estrada said he saw TV footage of Tupas and his fellow prosecutors, including their spokespersons, “showing to the media the list of the 45 properties.”

“So it’s not true that the list released to the media did not come from him because he even had a picture-taking [with the list]. It was seen on TV,” Estrada said in Filipino.

“These people are putting the members of the impeachment court on the spot. We [and the public] are being made to believe that the Chief Justice owns 45 properties. But here in court, it turns out that there are probably only 24 properties, including parking lots, under his name. The others are under the names of his children,” he said.

‘I don’t know him’

Estrada emphasized that he was not “defending” Corona.

“I don’t know him. In fact, he [was] one of those who conspired to oust my father [former President Joseph Estrada] from office. What I’m only saying is that we need to be fair in this court. Let us not lie,” he said.

In an appeal apparently directed to the prosecutors, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, the presiding officer, said they should “respect the rights of the accused.”

Tupas admitted to releasing only a document pertaining to Corona’s penthouse unit in the Bellagio at a press conference on January 3, or days before the impeachment court warned both camps against discussing the merits of the case in public.

The Senate Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials state that senator-judges and counsels “shall refrain from making any comments and disclosures in public pertaining to the merits of a pending impeachment trial.”

Responding to Estrada, Tupas said: “With respect to the [45] properties, I never released [them]. There’s no picture with the media. No press conference. It was an attachment with the request to subpoena, which was filed around three days before January 16.”

Enrile reminded the lawyer-politicians involved in the trial that they were “still agents of the court.”

“We must behave in accordance with the ethics of our profession and I would like to appeal to everybody, both sides, to observe the norms of ethical conduct that is required of us as lawyers of this country. So ordered,” he said.

Is offense impeachable?

Senator Joker Arroyo challenged the prosecutors to offer evidence “that has reached the level of an impeachable offense” after it was established that a mere correction of Corona’s statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs) could spare him from criminal and administrative sanctions.

Arroyo issued the challenge after a House prosecutor, Representative Elpidio Barzaga, insisted that Corona’s failure to “accurately” declare the acquisition cost of some properties amounted to “the highest form of betrayal of public trust.”

But a check made by Senator Ralph Recto with the Civil Service Commission’s rules and regulations showed that if an official required by law to submit a SALN made an erroneous entry, he “shall not be sanctioned” if he made a correction “in good faith.”

“I am happy this discussion arose,” Arroyo said, rising after the cross-examination of prosecution witness Sedfrey Garcia, registrar of deeds of Marikina City.

Garcia testified on the seven parcels of land that Corona and his wife allegedly owned in Marikina.

Arroyo also reminded his colleagues that “not every offense [or] omission is an impeachable offense.”

“The responsibility of the prosecution is to present evidence that would amount to an impeachable offense, and the defense must also defuse it. Otherwise, if the evidence presented here is just any kind of evidence, I don’t think that is fair to the Senate, because our criteria is an impeachable offense,” he said.

Arroyo pointed out that US President Bill Clinton was impeached by the US House of Representatives, which elevated it to the Senate.

Of a higher bar

“When the Senate heard [the complaint], it said it did not amount to an impeachable offense,” he recalled.

Turning to the House prosecutors, Arroyo said: “Give us evidence that has reached the level of an impeachable offense. As I keep repeating, it’s not just any offense. It must be of a higher bar because we are removing a Chief Justice.

“Give us something to hang on to. Otherwise we would go astray in the course of the proceedings.”

Escudero echoed Arroyo’s remarks, telling the prosecutors: “You cannot be inconsistent or have a double standard … We might be wasting time discussing crimes that may not be impeachable.

“Assuming that the Chief Justice was caught jaywalking on video. That is a violation of law but is that the nature of impeachment? Or if he gives P500 to someone in the [Land Transportation Office]—is this in the nature of an impeachment? Kindly educate us on the gravity and level of crimes that would be considered impeachable.”

Barzaga’s insistence that Corona committed the “highest form” of betrayal of public trust came after a discussion on which valuation of his properties should be included in his SALNs.

“The charge [under Article 2] is nondisclosure of assets [in the SALNs]. What should [Corona] have specifically reported, and what amount? The zonal value? The assessed value? Or that which appears in the deed of sale?” Senator Alan Peter Cayetano said.

Is it high crime?

Barzaga noted that Corona’s SALNs from 2002 to 2010 “left some blanks insofar as the acquisition cost is concerned.”

“Under the Constitution, the Chief Justice is required to file SALNs. Also, when the highest official in the judiciary does not declare accurately … then we think that would be the highest form of betrayal of public trust,” Barzaga said.

“According to the Supreme Court, if there has been omission or not a faithful or true declaration of the properties … the filer would be liable for perjury since his statement was made under oath and there is a certification at the last portion that all the statements contained are true and correct,” he said.

“If it’s a crime, is it a high crime?” Enrile asked.

“No, your honor,” Barzaga said.

View comments

TAGS: Judiciary, Renato Corona, Senate, Supreme Court