IBP says prosecution unable to prove ill-gotten wealth raps vs Corona
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on Friday said that after seven days of the impeachment trial, the prosecution still fell short in proving the alleged ill-gotten wealth of Chief Justice Renato Corona.
In a bulletin issued as part of its “independent” monitoring of the trial, the IBP said the prosecution’s comparison of Corona’s income tax returns (ITRs) with his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs) would not suffice to show prima facie presumption of guilt that would warrant his conviction.
“The documents that Sen. Ralph Recto was able to draw out from Internal Revenue Commissioner Kim Henares are still deficient to prove that [Corona] is prima facie guilty of graft and corruption,” the IBP said.
It discussed this observation further by citing Republic Act No. 1379, the law covering properties found to have been unlawfully acquired by public officers or employees.
It said the law provided that prima facie guilt of graft and corruption could be proven “only if the public officer during his incumbency acquired an amount of property manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and income from legitimately acquired property.”
“The prosecution therefore needs to show not only [Corona’s] salary, but also the fact that [he] does not have any ‘other lawful income’ and ‘income from legitimately acquired property’ before it can claim that it has prima facie proven that [he] is guilty of graft and corruption,” the IBP said.
Burden
Dennis Habawel, IBP spokesperson and governor of its Northern Luzon chapter, said the “burden” of the prosecution in the impeachment trial went beyond proving that Corona’s salary was not commensurate to his properties.
“Under the law on ill-gotten or unexplained wealth, it is not only the salary but also ‘other lawful income’ that is considered in explaining whether wealth acquired by an official is not commensurate or is unexplained,” Habawel said.
Lawyer Romulo Macalintal also questioned the logic employed by the prosecution in presenting the ITRs of the Chief Justice and his wife on Wednesday.
He said Corona’s income for a particular year could not be the sole basis of determining his financial ability to buy a piece of property for that year.
“For sure, the defense could explain further,” Macalintal said in a statement.
He also pointed out that the “alpha list” submitted by Henares would not suffice to establish the allegation that several assets of the Chief Justice were ill-gotten.
