Defense raps Tupas’ claims of evidence
Defense spokesperson Tranquil Salvador III. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
The claim of the House prosecution panel that it had presented “proof beyond reasonable doubt” to convict Chief Justice Renato Corona was an admission that the quantum of evidence needed for the impeachment proceedings should be similar to the trial of criminal cases, the defense said Sunday.
Tranquil Salvador III, one of the defense spokespersons, dismissed the statement of Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr., the head House prosecutor, as a means to sway the public’s perception in favor of the prosecution.
“That’s their conclusion. But to our mind, they have not really presented substantial evidence to prove Article 2,” Salvador said in a mobile phone interview. The second article in the impeachment complaint refers to Corona’s failure to disclose his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN).
If at all, Salvador said Tupas’ claims supported the argument of Corona’s lawyers that proof beyond reasonable doubt, and not just a preponderance of evidence, should be required to warrant Corona’s conviction.
“His pronouncement … is an affirmation and acceptance of the position of the defense that the quantum of evidence required in the impeachment trial is proof beyond reasonable,” Salvador argued.
He also accused Tupas of trying to influence the senator-judges by claiming that the prosecution had succeeded in proving Corona’s guilt.
“If you condition the mind of the public, you are in a way trying to influence or persuade through public opinion the views of those who would decide the case,” Salvador said.
“They are entitled to their own conclusion. But at this point … I feel that this pronouncement is a way to condition the mind of the public.”
Ramon Esguerra, another defense lawyer, assailed the lead House prosecutor for acting like an “accuser and judge,” pointing out that the defense has yet to present its evidence in the trial.
“While we cannot begrudge their excitement and overzealousness to see the Chief Justice convicted, they may have overlooked the very significant fact that the Chief Justice has not been heard yet, much less given the opportunity to present his evidence,” Esguerra said in a text message.
“Have they taken that right away from the Chief Justice? Have they taken away the Bill of Rights from the Constitution?” he said.
Esguerra said Tupas’ comment was just part of what he described as the prosecution’s “unabated self-serving assessment of the evidence.”
Salvador said making a conclusion regarding Corona’s guilt or innocence was still premature because the Senate impeachment court had yet to admit evidence both from the prosecution and the defense.
He noted that the documents pertaining to Corona’s alleged questionable dollar accounts and multimillion-peso accounts, which he failed to declare in SALN, had not been formally admitted by the Senate as evidence.
Before Corona’s alleged bank records could be officially taken as evidence, Salvador said the prosecution should first prove that they were acquired legally.
