Prosecution opposes motion to suppress PSBank evidence
Iloilo Representative Niel Tupas Jr. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
The prosecution panel from the House of Representatives has opposed a motion of Chief Justice Renato Corona’s lawyers to suppress the illegally obtained evidence of his bank deposits with Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank) in the impeachment trial.
In the prosecution’s comment, Iloilo Representative Niel Tupas Jr., the lead prosecutor, asked the Senate impeachment court to deny the motion as there had been no final determination that the documents attached as “Annex A” to the prosecution’s supplemental request for subpoena were fake documents.
On February 9, PSBank president Pascual Garcia III testified in the impeachment court that portions of the photocopies of the PSBank records attached as Annex A to the prosecution’s supplemental request for subpoena contained discrepancies were not copies of the bank’s documents.
On February 13, the manager of the PSBank Katipunan branch, Anabelle Tiongson, testified that Annex A was a fake document.
But Tupas said Corona “misappreciated” the conflicting statements of the two bank witnesses.
Dissimilarities
“No judicial proceedings have categorically declared that Annex A is indeed fake. Furthermore, Tiongson’s and Garcia’s testimonies on this point were vague, indefinite and contained inconsistencies,” Tupas said.
Defense lawyers had merely concluded that the document was fake because it contained certain dissimilarities to the original document.
However, the defense lawyers also admitted that Annex A had similarities, in form and in the entries, with the original document they had in their custody, he said.
Tupas also said all of the account numbers contained in Annex A were confirmed to have existed in the Katipunan branch of PSBank.
He said the allegation that Annex A was fake was inconsistent with the defense panel’s subsequent allegation that the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) and the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), which audited PSBank in September to December 2010, had “leaked” the document.
“If Annex A was indeed fake, then it could not have been ‘leaked’ by the BSP and AMLC. Needless to say, if it was a ‘leaked’ document originating from PSBank, how can it be fake? A fake document could not have been illegally obtained,” Tupas said.
He said that statements of Tiongson and Garcia that it was fake and the allegation that it was a “leaked” document were mutually exclusive.
Senate probe
“Therefore, we cannot rely on the mere testimonies of Tiongson and Garcia because they themselves are not convinced that Annex A is fake,” Tupas said.
This was also the reason the Senate, acting in its legislative capacity, was conducting its own investigation of the matter, according to the lead prosecutor.
Tupas said even some senator-judges, particularly Senate President Pro Tempore Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada, voiced out an opinion that the document was a faithful reproduction of the original.
Tupas noted that Senate Panfilo Lacson had also expressed reservations about the allegation that the document was fake and had suggested that the document be submitted to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory or the National Bureau of Investigation for examination to finally settle once and for all whether the document was bogus.
Furthermore, the opening statement of Senator Sergio Osmeña, the chairman of the Senate committee on banks, echoed the statements of Tiongson and Garcia that Annex A may have been a “leaked document,” Tupas said.
He said the impeachment court had been consistent in its position that the bank accounts were relevant to the second impeachment article, which pertains to Corona’s nondisclosure of his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN).
More importantly, Corona, by admitting that he owned several currency deposit accounts and that he would disclose them in due time, implied that the bank accounts were relevant to the second article of impeachment, according to Tupas.
