‘Senate may admit Corona bank accounts’

Chief Justice Renato Corona. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

The Senate impeachment court is likely to admit all pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution against Chief Justice Renato Corona, including the bank records obtained by House prosecutors through allegedly questionable sources and means, Senator Panfilo Lacson said Monday.

“The general sentiment right now and I can speak about the general sentiment—and of course, this will be the subject of discussion—is as much as possible, all evidence presented and marked, as much as possible, we will admit as evidence,” Lacson said in an ambush interview.

“We will leave it to the defense panel to answer point by point all issues and pieces of evidence presented so far,” he said.

Senator Aquilino Pimentel III was more emphatic, saying that the Senate should admit Corona’s bank records as evidence.

“There is no reason an impeachment court, which is after the truth, should follow a different standard,” ABS-CBN News quoted Pimentel as saying.

Pimentel said what the Senate should guard against was accepting fake documents as evidence.

While Corona’s signature card may be illegally obtained, it contains authentic information, Pimentel said.

He noted that not all information on Corona’s bank records that the prosecution had presented were acquired through the signature card.

Caucus

On Tuesday morning, senators are scheduled to sit in caucus to tackle these crucial issues, the decisions of which would apparently affect the direction and outcome of the impeachment trial of Corona.

Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III and Senator Gregorio Honasan distanced themselves from Lacson’s observation.

Told about Lacson’s position, Sotto said his colleague was expressing a “personal opinion.” Sotto said he would prefer to “hear the pros and cons first” during the caucus set at 11 a.m.

Honasan said of Lacson’s opinion: “That may be just another legal opinion. But as to the decision, we will find out [on Tuesday]. What will be followed, and this should be reflected in the ruling of the presiding officer, is the majority decision. I want to hear the discussions first.”

Defense motion

Last week, Corona’s lawyers filed a motion to “suppress illegally obtained evidence” in connection with his deposits with Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank).

The evidence surfaced at the trial following the issuance of a Senate subpoena, which was based on copies of Corona’s signature cards submitted by the prosecution.

The PSBank president testified at the impeachment court that Corona had kept five accounts in the bank that contained at least P24.6 million between 2007 and 2010.

Based on the testimony of the PSBank president, a PSBank branch manager and a manager of Bank of Philippine Islands (BPI), the prosecution claimed that Corona had P31.75 million in deposits in two PSBank accounts and one BPI account, but Corona declared only P3.5 million in cash and investments in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) for 2010.

Representative Reynaldo Umali claimed he received his copy from a “small lady,” while Rep. Jorge Banal said he got his after someone left it at the gate of his house at the tightly-guarded St. Ignatius Village in Quezon City.

Central bank examiner

Questions over the source of the document triggered an investigation by the Senate committee on banks.

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile later zeroed in on examiner Jerry Leal of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas as the one responsible for the leak.

But Lacson on Monday said “it has yet to be proven” that Corona’s bank records had been leaked, to which Honasan did not agree.

“That was the suspicion raised by Senator Enrile … it has not yet been resolved,” said Lacson, who recalled his previous suggestion that both PSBank president Pascual Garcia III and Leal be subjected to a polygraph test.

But Honasan was convinced Corona’s bank documents had been leaked.

“Obviously, there was a leak. It seems that the source of the leak had been pinpointed. That’s my impression. It’s just a matter of determining the culpability and the next issue would be how it would impact on the evidence,” he told the Philippine Daily Inquirer. “I want to hear both the legal and nonlegal opinions in caucus.”

Fruit of poisonous tree

Lacson said the “fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree” principle in criminal cases may not apply to the Corona impeachment trial.

He said the rule applied only if state agents were involved in “illegal searches and seizures.”

In their motion, defense lawyers cited the “constitutional guarantee against unlawful searches and seizure, and the prosecution [of] the individual, who has already suffered an unlawful search which is found in the exclusionary rule.”

Another crucial issue that senator-judges would have to resolve in caucus is the prosecution’s move to withdraw the five remaining articles of impeachment. The lead prosecutor, Representative Niel Tupas Jr., had said his panel reserved the right to present evidence in case it was later allowed to scrutinize Corona’s alleged dollar account.

Defense lawyers said they were at a loss as to whether the prosecution was dropping the charges or were simply terminating its presentation of evidence on the five articles. In case of the latter, they said they could still present their own evidence to controvert the allegations.

Honasan said the matter would have to be “clarified,” noting that “that’s not the way it’s usually done.”

“It suggests that the prosecution was really lacking in preparation,” he said in Filipino.

“What are we now to conclude if out of eight articles, you are withdrawing five? In the eyes of many, it indicates how strong or weak your case is,” he added.

Assurance sought

Defense lawyer Ramon Esguerra earlier said his camp was ready to argue against the five articles of impeachment.

But if prosecutors were indeed withdrawing them, he said the defense wanted an assurance that the same charges could no longer be filed against Corona after one year.

However the matter is resolved, both Honasan and Lacson agreed that it would be better for Corona to testify in his own impeachment trial.

“I agree with the observation for the Chief Justice to appear. There are many questions that only he can answer and I think he can handle it,” Honasan said.

Lacson said Corona would be the defense panel’s “best witness” on alleged discrepancies in his SALN.