Chief Justice Corona opposes additional evidence on dollar accounts
MANILA, Philippines—Chief Justice Renato Corona, through his lawyers, has asked the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, to deny the “reservation” filed by the prosecution team to present additional evidence pertaining to his alleged dollar accounts.
While it already rested their case against Corona, the prosecution team reserved its right to present evidence on Corona’s alleged dollar accounts pending a resolution on the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by the Supreme Court.
In a five-page opposition filed Wednesday, Corona’s lawyers claimed that allowing the prosecution team to make such reservation would place the Chief Justice at an “unwarranted disadvantage.”
They lamented the reservation by the prosecution “tends to favor only their objectives and unduly prejudices CJ Corona.”
Corona’s lawyers cited several other grounds why they opposed the reservation on the dollar accounts.
“First, there is no reason attributable to CJ Corona for the inability of the prosecution to present evidence on alleged dollar accounts,” they said, pointing out that the TRO was obtained by the Philippine Savings Bank.
Second, the lawyers pointed out that the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, had already voted (13-10) to respect the TRO.
“If the prosecution should wish to avail of an opportunity to present evidence on alleged dollar accounts, it falls upon them to await the resolution of the TRO and trial may be suspended accordingly,” they said.
It would also be to the ‘great prejudice’ of the Chief Justice to force him to present his defense under these circumstances, the defense team said in the opposition.
“For obvious reasons, CJ Corona will not be able to rest his case until the issue on the reception of evidence is resolved, as he may need to respond or rebut any additional evidence that the prosecution may present.”
In the formal offer of evidence of the prosecution, Corona’s camp also pointed out that there was no qualification or reservation made to accommodate the presentation of additional evidence.
“The presentation of additional evidence will necessitate the filing of a second formal offer of evidence and thus invite a second comment from CJ Corona to the formal offer of evidence.”
But if the reservation was deemed valid and of sufficient importance, then Corona’s camp said there should be a separate trial for these dollar accounts.
“While the matter of a separate trial is addressed to the sound discretion of the honorable impeachment court, the constitutional right of CJ Corona to a speed trial must be considered,” said his lawyers.
Conducting a separate trial, however, would preclude the ongoing impeachment trial in the Senate until the prosecutors decide to abandon their reservation.
“Plainly, this places the power to determine the termination of the trial with the prosecution,” the lawyers said.
“Surely, there is no valid reason why CJ Corona should be hurried to present his evidence in chief while the prosecution retains their option, ‘should there be development allowing the presentation of such evidence.’”
Besides, when the TRO was issued, Corona’s camp said, the trial should be restrained until such time the TRO is lifted and the case is allowed to proceed.
