Defense moves to block bid on Corona dollar accounts

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, the presiding officer in the impeachment trial, said that whoever was behind the leakage of Chief Justice Renato Corona’s bank accounts could be the subject of a separate criminal complaint. INQUIRER file photo

Chief Justice Renato Corona wants the Senate to suspend the impeachment trial if the prosecution panel  would be given the option to present additional evidence on his dollar accounts.

Defense lawyers are set to argue their case when the trial resumes on Monday, despite the prosecutors’ manifestation “reserving their right to present evidence” on Corona’s dollar accounts “should there be developments allowing the presentation of such evidence.”

In a five-page opposition filed on Wednesday, the defense panel asked the impeachment court to junk the manifestation, saying it would put the Chief Justice “at an unwarranted disadvantage.”

The defense counsels noted that it was Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank), not Corona, that “independently obtained” a temporary restraining order (TRO) (from the Supreme Court) preventing the impeachment court from scrutinizing his dollar accounts.

“If the prosecution should wish to avail [itself] of an opportunity to present evidence on alleged dollar deposits, it falls upon [it] to await the resolution of the TRO and the trial may be suspended accordingly,” the defense said.

Disclosure

But Corona said on Wednesday on GMA 7 as part of his “media hopping”  to “friendly” media companies that he would make good on his promise to make public his dollar accounts in PSBank.

“Whether or not there will be a TRO from the Supreme Court, I said I will open it up at the right time and that right time is next week when we will start presenting our evidence,” the Chief Justice said.

His lawyers, however, pointed out that the Senate had voted to respect the TRO and said “there is no reason attributable to CJ Corona for the inability of the prosecution to present evidence on alleged dollar accounts.”

“It works to the great prejudice of CJ Corona to force him to present his defense under these circumstances,” his lawyers said. “For obvious reasons, (he) 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.”

Separate trial

Should the prosecution be eventually allowed to present evidence on dollar accounts, the defense said the impeachment court might have to require or direct a separate trial for this issue.

“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 speedy trial must be considered,” the defense argued.

The counsels said a separate trial would “preclude the termination of the trial until any such development occurs or until such time that the prosecution decides to abandon the reservation.”

“Plainly, this places the power to determine the termination of the trial with the prosecution,” the defense said.

“Surely, there is no valid reason why CJ Corona should be hurried to present his evidence … while the prosecution retains their option, ‘should there be developments allowing the presentation of such evidence.’”

Last week, the prosecution submitted its written formal offer of documentary evidence, which, according to the defense, contained “no qualification or reservation made to accommodate the presentation of additional evidence.”

Another offer

The defense said the presentation of additional evidence would require another formal offer of evidence, to which Corona would have to comment once more.

The impeachment court will decide by March 12 which of the pieces of documentary evidence offered by the prosecution would be admitted.

On Monday, the court ruled to admit evidence on Corona’s bank records despite allegations that the prosecution had obtained them through illegal means.

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, the presiding officer in the impeachment trial, later said that whoever was behind the leakage could be the subject of a separate criminal complaint.

Despite the Senate ruling, the defense filed on Wednesday a reply warning that admitting illegally obtained evidence “will lead to dangerous precedents.”

It said the admission would leave “impeachable public officers unprotected against unreasonable searches and seizures and invasions of privacy in violation of the Bill of Rights.”

“The release of the bank information and bank cards of CJ Corona [is] the result of an unreasonable search and seizure and cannot be sustained under Philippine laws and the Constitution,” the defense argued.

Originally posted at 08:42 pm | Thursday, March 08,  2012