Defense strengthens case for prosecution—Representative Angara
MANILA, Philippines—The defense panel is trying to establish that Chief Justice Renato Corona had the capacity to purchase several properties said to be in his name but rather than proving their case, they were instead strengthening that of their opponent.
Spokesmen of the prosecution panel told reporters this at the end of Day 29 of the impeachment trial.
Aurora Representative Juan Edgardo Angara said that although the defense panel revealed through their witnesses that Corona received millions in allowances, cross examination by their camp indicated that the funds under MOOE could not be used to personal reasons.
He added that if the defense was thinking of justifying the purchase of condominium units by the chief magistrate using the said funds, the matter was not in accordance to law.
“What they are trying to do is balloon as much cash so they can (justify) the dollar accounts,” said Marikina Representative Romero Quimbo. He remarked that the defense also seemed to be presenting evidence to the public instead of addressing the impeachment complaint.
He surmised that the defense might be planning to bloat Corona’s sources of income “para masabi na kaya niyang bilihin (ang mga properties) at ang mali lang ay hindi niya nadeclare (sa SALN). Yun ang depensa nila.”
“He obviously needed to declare as soon as he acquired them. (There is an) attempt to bloat something which is not there to begin with.”
Quimbo said what the defense presented “does not dispel our accusations but strengthen them” which Angara supported, pointing out how the purchase of seven Marikina City parcels of land by Demetrio Vicente had been questionable while the allowances and benefits testified to by Supreme Court’s Araceli Bayuga, Senate electoral tribunal Secretary Irene Guevarra and House electoral tribunal’s Girlie Salarda seemed to have been undeclared.
“Bawat testigo tila lalong nababaon si Chief Justice,” Angara said.
If the position of Corona’s lawyers was that he bought his properties through other sources of income, Quezon Representative Lorenzo Tañada said that these should be declared in the SALN of the Chief Justice.
He pointed out that Corona’s income did not increase from P3.5 million and that with the direction the defense was going, they were headed towards discussing matters of ill-gotten wealth—an issue which has been set aside by the impeachment court.
“Bumabalik at bumabalik po tayo sa Article 2.4… Pero dahil binubuksan ulit, ito’y pagkakataon para sa prosecution na patunayan na itong mga other income ng punong mahistrado ay kasama sa ill-gotten wealth.”
Quimbo also pointed out that by bringing up the issue on ill-gotten wealth, the defense has also “opened up paragraph 2.4 of Article 2. They effectively re-opened that matter. Kapag nagpresinta ka po ng testigo o ebidensiya patungkol doon ay parang binubuksan na rin ho nila yan.”
According to Angara, presenting evidence on issues covered by Articles 2.3 and 2.4 was an “implied admission o pag-amin na maraming naipresintang ebidensya and prosekusyon paukol sa yaman ni chief justice.”
He asked why it would be relevant for the defense to venture into the said issues if they deemed it unnecessary to present evidence on ill-gotten wealth.
The spokespersons said that they were seriously considering including Article 2.4 in their upcoming rebuttal.
