Quantcast
pork barrel

Defense bows to court decision; to block prosecution’s offer of evidence

By |


Tranquil Salvador III. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

Lawyers of Chief Justice Renato Corona on Tuesday said they respected the decision of the Senate impeachment court to deny their motion to exclude Corona’s bank records as evidence in his impeachment trial, but they would block the prosecution’s offer of evidence.

Tranquil Salvador III, one of the defense panel’s spokespersons, said the Senate decision covered only the defense motion to suppress evidence and not the prosecution’s formal offer of evidence.

“We have yet to file our objection to the formal offer of evidence. We will file it (Wednesday) and the (Senate) will have to resolve it by Thursday,” Salvador said in a mobile phone interview.

Asked if they would appeal the Senate’s ruling, he said: “We are still considering our options. But for now, we will just file our objection and reiterate the reasons why the bank records (should not) be admitted by the court.”

He said the defense panel would oppose the inclusion of Corona’s bank records as evidence because “its offer was misleading” since the documents were supposedly presented by the prosecution panel in support of its allegation in Paragraph 2.4 of the second article of impeachment.

Salvador said Paragraph 2.4, which accused Corona of amassing ill-gotten wealth, had been stricken from the records by the Senate as part of the impeachment complaint.

“(The bank documents) were introduced in connection with the ill-gotten wealth allegation. But that is no longer a reason (for impeachment),” he said.

“Second, the source is questionable. It violates the exclusionary (provision of the rules of evidence),” the lawyer added.


Follow Us




Recent Stories:

Complete stories on our Digital Edition newsstand for tablets, netbooks and mobile phones; 14-issue free trial. About to step out? Get breaking alerts on your mobile.phone. Text ON INQ BREAKING to 4467, for Globe, Smart and Sun subscribers in the Philippines.

Tags: Congress , corona bank accounts , Corona Impeachment , Defense , Government , Judiciary , Politics , Prosecution , Renato Corona , Senate , Supreme Court


  • Hey_Dudes

    Your best option is to – simply give up!  You think your client can get away fooling the Filipino people?

  • tagasampaloc

     The Defense accepted the Senate ruling to …” deny their motion to exclude Corona’s bank records as evidence in his impeachment trial, but they would block the prosecution’s offer of evidence.” to quote.
    What the heck!
    Apparently, the Defense does not know the meaning of deny which has the opposite of accept.
    Defense is either playing dumbo jumbo of technicalities or thinks that the senators are fools to say that they deny the defense motion but are not accepting them as evidence.

    • adam_d_ant

      ow …. mas matalino ka pa ke lolo … the senators are not fools … how could they be fools when they know very that “100 million reasons” will do the trick

      ang mga nauuto talaga ni budoy …. ngeee

  • Atagalong

    This is a stare decisis not by the Supreme Court but by the Senate as an impeaching court. If what is proscribed by law, e.g. dollar accounts, as extremely confidential except if the owner gives permission to the same being dessiminated or divulged, then what can prevent it from being used in court when a similar situation occurs? “Stare decisis et non quieta movere.”

  • A_wanderer

    Time for the BIR to audit Corona!They can access his dollar accounts.

  • imnotstupid

    The truth should come out!! Ibig sabihin ng defense dahil totoo ayaw nilang lumabas…mahirap kasing depensahan nang inamin na ng bank official na totoo nga iyong mga deposit ni Corona..Sabi na nga ni Enrile hindi naman kasali iyon sa exclusionary role of evidence dahil private citizen ang nagbigay sa prosecution. Kung baga sa chess malapit na silang macheckmate!!! kaya gagawin lahat iyong mga technicalities para mahadlangan lumabas ang totoo…Sa lumabas na news lately dapat nga ilagay sa kalye si Corona na maraming siga para matutukan din siya ng baril sa ulo para matakot..

    • adam_d_ant

      ows,,…. palagay ko si retard nilagay sa kanto malapit sa hacienda at binunutan ng magsasaka ng buhok kaya nakalbo …

      ang mga nauuto nga naman ni budoy ……. ngeee

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JQBHSHS22G65Z6V5Z64XBRCIZQ simon

    the bible is telling us,,, they do not want to come to light because their deeds were evil.

  • jiroarturo

    AMLAC rin yata ang dapat mag imbistiga sa pera ni Corona. Hindi lang siguro sa PSB meron siyang pera. Ang BIR nagumpisa ng mag inbestiga sa income tax return ni Corona. Baka kasuhan pa rin siya ng graft and corruption sa Sandigan Bayan.

    • adam_d_ant

      baka, baka, baka … he. he. he… hindi baka, kambing na kalbo ang me gawa n’yan …

      ang mga nauuto talaga ni budoy … ngeee

  • aristeosj

    too much technicalities as usual,foaming from the mouth
    of the defense team.hide the evidences as much as
    possible.you just can not fool the people all the time
    defense team.waah!!!

  • clementejak

    Irregardless how an evidence is procured no one can deny the facts that those bank accounts of Corona does exists. This is what is called the best evidence rule.

    In as much as the sole purpose of this impeachment trial is to know the truth and nothing but the truth, let the judgment takes it course.

    • SignTheWaiverNow

      TOINKS! =)

      No evidence can be admitted if this is acquired illegally…. that the simplest rule of evidence! It doesn’t matter if it is true or not….

      This is because the constitution protects the right of any person in this country to be persecuted, harassed, and privacy….

      To give you a scenario, if you are a drug addict, and police goes to your house without a search warrant and found out that you have illegal drugs. Will that be admissible in court? the answer is not! because those evidences were illegally acquired!!!!

      Kasi po kung ganyan ang batas natin, matakot ka na tumira dito! lololol

      • http://twitter.com/mokong69ers reynold fulgencio

        The scenario that you gave applies to a criminal trial. Obviously, this one is not. That is why the impeachment court accept those bank records as evidence.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/IT7O55UC4HYM5FBMSQBPR546JE Rens

        You’re analogy is completely misplaced. The rules against unreasonable searches and seizures are strictly being enforced in criminal proceedings because what is at stake here is someone’s life or liberty. If abused by law enforcers, innocent civilians might be incarcerated even if the evidence was procured illegally.

        An impeachment case is not criminal in nature. It is a political process whereby the Filipino people, through their elected representatives (congressmen and senators) pass upon the merit and fitness of people occupying the highest positions in the land. The Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, is not mandated to strictly follow the Rules of Procedure as applied in civil and criminal cases.

        CJ Corona’s life or liberty is not at risk here. If convicted, the worse that could happen to him is removal from his position. A position that he does now own but entrusted to him by the people and as such could be taken away by the same sovereign (the people) through the aforementioned process of impeachment.

      • sacrebleau

        I like the comparison between the drug addict and the Thief Justice, yup, they are both lowlife. But your overly simplistic comparative analysis on evidence is crap.Yes, c-r-a-p. Why?

        1. In the case of the drug addict: Police seizes drugs without a warrant. This is criminal in nature.

        2. In the case of lapdog: IMPEACHMENT COURT questions documents of actual bank accounts existing in PSBank. Court investigations as to who provided the leak remains inconclusive, but the Court could easily disregard the questionable dox and directly subpoena the accounts records.

  • Ed Molina

    what?!! the defense respects the decision to deny their motion to exclude the evidence but they would still block the prosecution’s evidence?

    para bang nagrequest sila na ipagbawal magsilbi ng kape, tapos nung sinabi na puwede magsilbi ng kape, ang irerequest naman nila ngayon ay pagbawalan maglagay ng kape doon sa tasa na isisilbi! langya! lokohan na talaga ito! waaah!

    • adam_d_ant

      weeee….. part of the processs  … kung hindi pahintulotan ng senado, wala din ..

      dito nakikita nag pagkakaiba ng persecution at defence  … pag sumemplang ang persecution sasabihin, hindi fair ang senado … pag sumemplang ang side ng defence, hahanap ng puwedeng pangontra …

      that’s how people with sane minds confront challenges … hindi iiyak at susumbong sa media … he. he. he. he..

      ang mga nauuto talaga ni budoy …. ngeee

  • reydomingo

     let the truth come out and set us free… ang tagal na natin nangangarap mapaganda bansa, mabawasan kung hindi man mawala ng husto ang corruption… sa defense, sana gamitin nyo ang impluwensya nyo kay corona na magsabi ng totoo at sana hindi kayo magpagamit sa pagtatakip ng katotohanan…. sana hindi kayo pareho ng paniniwala kay miriam na walang impyeirno… na sa dakong huli, lahat tayo ay haharap sa ating manlilikha at magsusulit ng lahat ng ating ginawa dito sa lupa…

  • Atlason

    The defense does not have to worry, the prosecutors have not proven anything. What they have proven is that they’re just a bunch of incompetent liars, law-breakers, corrupt, fabricators of fake evidence and it is impossible to muster the required 16 senator votes to oust Corona.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/IT7O55UC4HYM5FBMSQBPR546JE Rens

      They haven’t proven anything?!!? Are you serious? Have you been hiding inside a cave for the past 2 months?

      And you’re calling them incompetent liars, law-breakers, corrupt, fabricators of fake evidence?? Were you able TO PROVE these allegations already?

      But I do agree with you in one thing – that is is highly improbable (albeit not “impossible”) to muster the required 2/3 vote to remove CJ Corona. But who knows? The game ain’t over until the fat lady sings..

  • JosephNess

    Asked if they would appeal the Senate’s ruling, he said: “We are still considering our options. But for now, we will just file our objection and reiterate the reasons why the bank records (should not) be admitted by the court.”

    yes, for the very reason of hiding the truth…in spite of these evidences being known to be belonging to the bank accounts of the CJ…..

  • 4kingdaddy

    why is cuevas mummed nowadays?  is this a sign that his reputation, and those of the other defense attorneys are in danger on losing their credibilities?….your client, “arturo-uan mo” is a fish that gets hooked on its mouth…..he, too, is a media hound…texted the journalists?…only an idiot would do such a thing especially when your head is hanging by a cord….and these defense lawyers are now thinking that they could be losing clients-to-be in the near future…God forbid, if i run into trouble, i would not seek, nay never, neither of these lawyers to represent me, even if it’s pro bono…..if this is a game of chess,  the defense’s rooks, knights and bishops were already gone….the queen is about to be cornered, there are only four remaining pawns and nowhere to go….and the king is about to be checked mate…….smart-alec guitierrez is laughing at you, atong, all the way to her bank….what’s that, atong?…you will drag ditas and the arroyos to join you in your cell?….good for you…the more, the merrier inside NBP….sama-sama together…..he…he…he….

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dennis-Yanos/100003583571069 Dennis Yanos

    haaaaay renato corona, basang basa na ng publiko ang pagmumukha mo.  isang thief justice na abusado.

  • walaKA

    Si ATTY. CUEVAS lang naman nagpapatagal..Balita ko ang BAYAD nya e nakadepende kung gaano karami OBJECTION magagawa nya during trial..It means, the MORE the MERRIER!!!Kaya wag kayo magtataka na kahit DEFENSE na magsasalita, bigla SISIGAW si Cuevas ng “OBJECTION YOUR HONOR”..(sabay lista!) Tsk!



Copyright © 2014, .
To subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines, call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.
Factual errors? Contact the Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk. Believe this article violates journalistic ethics? Contact the Inquirer's Reader's Advocate. Or write The Readers' Advocate:
c/o Philippine Daily Inquirer Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City, Metro Manila, Philippines Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94
Advertisement
Advertisement
Marketplace
Advertisement