Ex-CJ Corona accused of forum shopping in seeking to quash perjury raps
FORMER Chief Justice Renato Corona and his wife Cristina. Photo by Marc Jayson Cayabyab/INQUIRER.net FILE PHOTO
State prosecutors accused ousted Chief Justice Renato Corona of resorting to forum shopping in seeking to quash the perjury charges against him over false declarations of wealth.
In its comment opposition to the motion to quash filed by Corona before the anti-graft court Third Division, the Office of the Special Prosecutor said the motion should be dismissed for being “improper” and “unprocedural.”
Such is because Corona’s motion to quash contains the same arguments he raised in his pending petition for certiorari filed before the Supreme Court.
The prosecution said Corona’s move constitutes forum shopping, or an act of filing two remedies in different courts, which would enable him to avail of a remedy whichever comes first, possibly putting the two courts against each other in two contradictory rulings.
The prosecution claimed that Corona only wanted to delay his arraignment for perjury.
READ: Sandigan finds probable cause to put Corona on trial for perjury
Corona argued that he should not be charged for perjury because he had not yet availed of a corrective measure to rectify the errors he committed in his Statement of Assets and Liabilities Networth (SALN) and that he did not deliberately make false statements of wealth.
The prosecution added that Corona merely raised the same arguments he had mentioned in his motion for judicial determination of probable cause, which the court promptly denied, and his motion for reconsideration after.
For the prosecuting team, it was only disrespectful for Corona to rehash the same issues before the court.
“Aside from placing this Honorable Court in an untenable position vis-a-vis the Supreme Court, accused Corona’s motion also unfairly compels this Honorable Court to once again resolve, for the third time, issues that it had already settled with finality,” the prosecution said.
“This makes accused Corona’s motion completely unprocedural, if not altogether contemptuous, and therefore summarily dismissable,” it added.
Corona was impeached by Congress in 2012 on false declarations of wealth in his SALN.
READ: Historic impeachment trial ends gov’t career of Renato Corona
As a result of the said impeachment, the Ombudsman charged Corona before the Sandiganbayan of eight counts of perjury and eight counts of violations of Republic Act 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials, which requires public officials to file truthful SALNs.
The Ombudsman indicted Corona for allegedly lying about his true net worth by not declaring properties and several bank accounts as well as undervaluing a number of real-estate properties he earlier declared.
READ: Ombudsman goes after Corona’s PSBank accounts
During its probe, the Ombudsman said that from 2001 to 2011, Corona and his wife Cristina earned a total of P30.4 million, of which P27.1 million was earned by Corona as an official of the Office of the President, a Supreme Court justice, member of the Senate Electoral Tribunal and member of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal.
Meanwhile, his spouse earned P3.2 million from 2007 to 2010, based on the Alpha List submitted to the Bureau of Internal Revenue by the John Hay Development Corp. where she was an employee.
However, from 2002 to 2010, Corona’s cash deposits ballooned from P1.34 million to P137.9 million, the resolution said.
By 2010, the cumulative discrepancy between his SALN declaration and his actual cash deposits had amounted to P134.4 million.
Furthermore, the resolution cited records of the Land Registration Authority on several properties owned by the Corona spouses in Quezon City, Makati City and Fort Bonifacio in Taguig City, which were found to be significantly undervalued by P17.3 million.
Because of such allegations, the Ombudsman also slapped the Corona spouses with a P130.59 million civil forfeiture case. RAM
READ: Ombudsman summons Corona’s dollar bank account over civil forfeiture case
