Senators Aquilino Pimentel III and Francis Pangilinan. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
Senators are cool to the idea of admitting evidence on alleged properties of Chief Justice Renato Corona in the United States in his impeachment trial.
Senators Aquilino Pimentel III and Francis Pangilinan on Tuesday pointed out that the defense was already presenting its evidence, which began after the prosecution had rested its case.
In resting its case, the prosecution reserved the right to present evidence on Corona’s dollar deposits. Philippine Savings Bank has petitioned the Supreme Court to prevent the impeachment court from scrutinizing the Chief Justice’s account.
“To reopen the case after the prosecution rested would be a long shot, especially when the property is not even in the name of the respondent,” Pimentel told the Philippine Daily Inquirer in a phone interview.
“In basketball, it would not only be a half-court shot, but a shot all the way from the other end of the court.”
The issue of admitting new evidence for the prosecution surfaced after a blogger reported on a California property bought by Corona’s daughter Maria Charina, a physical therapist in the United States.
Roseville property
The blogger claimed that Charina bought the property in the City of Roseville in Placer County 22 days before she purchased a P6.2-million property in McKinley Hill, Taguig City, in 2008.
Pangilinan said he would “await the written positions to be officially manifested by both the defense and the prosecution, should there be any, before I decide on whether or not new evidence can be introduced notwithstanding the fact the prosecution has rested its case.”
“Strictly speaking, only rebuttal evidence can be presented by the prosecution and this pertains to evidentiary matters presented by the defense,” he said in a text message.
But the senator, an ally of President Benigno Aquino III, did not entirely close the door on the possibility of admitting new evidence from the prosecution.
Wife breaks silence
“In the end, however, the court has the final say as to whether to allow or disallow the presentation of additional evidence depending on the strength of the arguments to be presented by both sides,” he said.
Corona’s wife broke her silence over the latest accusations against her family, insisting that the California property was purchased by her daughter.
Cristina Corona briefly answered questions from members of the media after she and her daughter Carla attended the daily noon Mass at the Supreme Court compound.
“Wala (nothing),” Cristina replied when asked if she and her husband had bought houses in the United States.
“Our daughter, if she has properties, it’s hers. It’s not mine. It’s not ours,” she said.
The Chief Justice earlier categorically denied that his family owned properties in Tampa, Florida, and Mountain View, California, as insinuated by journalist Raissa Robles in her blog entry.
Dirt cheap
But he admitted on Monday that one of his daughters, Maria Charina, was the registered owner of a house in California which, he said, was purchased “dirt cheap.”
Amid Robles’ latest claims that she had information about Corona’s alleged properties, the lawyers of the Chief Justice dared Robles to take the witness stand at the impeachment trial in the Senate.
Describing her articles as “fictional stories,” defense counsel Rico Paolo Quicho said Robles should convince the prosecution panel to amend the impeachment complaint and include the Chief Justice’s alleged US properties.
“If she feels that the documents that she has are material and relevant to the case, she should ask the prosecution to use them as its evidence in court,” Quicho told the Inquirer over the phone.
“If she really feels strongly about the veracity of the documents, why doesn’t she testify so we could have an opportunity to ask questions from her,” he added.
He said Robles’ testimony may help the public determine the truth about her articles which, she claimed, were based on information given to her by certain individuals.
Dummy
Pimentel declined to read much into the theory that Corona might have used his daughter as a dummy. He said the matter would have been suspicious if the property was placed under the name of a minor. “In this case, it is under the name of an adult with a job,” he said.
Pimentel said presenting evidence on the US property would not reflect well on prosecutors from the House of Representatives.
“Does it mean that a blogger could find it, but prosecutors could not? That would be an evidence of poor evidence-gathering by the prosecution,” he said.
Dollar account
Quicho dismissed Robles’ claim that the purchase of the California property may be linked to Corona’s dollar account in Philippine Savings Bank.
“What does it have to do with the dollar account? What’s the connection? Nobody has even established that the property was owned by the Chief Justice,” he said.
Instead of making inferences, Robles should present a certificate of title which, Quicho said, was the only valid proof of ownership of property.
He said it was unfair for anybody to accuse the Chief Justice of owning the properties purchased by members of his family.
“It would be unfair for Robles to impute malice without showing direct evidence that the Chief Justice owns those properties. She should show the certificate of title for us to know who the real registered owner [is],” he said.
“If the documents show that Charina owns the house, how can they say that it’s relevant to the impeachment case? Does it mean that the Chief Justice owns the property?” he added.
“Charina has the capacity to pay for the property because she has been working in the US for several years. Is it a sin for her to buy property?”