Prosecutor gets scolding over Atienza testimony
PICKING UP where the Corona impeachment trial left off weeks ago, former Manila Mayor Lito Atienza resumes his testimony.
The prosecution on Monday sought to punch holes in the testimony of former Manila Mayor Lito Atienza on the purchase by the city government of property whose payment of P34.7 million was eventually reflected in the bank accounts of Chief Justice Renato Corona and his wife, Cristina.
But private prosecutor Renato Samonte found himself repeatedly scolded by senators, for “impugning” his own evidence to the “irrelevance” of his line of questioning.
Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, the presiding officer, reminded the prosecution that any possible defect in the sale of the property owned by the family of Cristina Corona was “impertinent, immaterial” to her husband’s impeachment case—that he fudged his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs).
Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago also said that “evidence on alleged irregularities should be presented to the solicitor general for litigation in court.”
“The Corona SALNs do not include the purchase price of P35 million because Cristina Corona apparently received it from the city of Manila in trust for the corporation,” she said on Day 35 of the impeachment trial, which gathered only 16 senator-judges.
In his redirect examination of Atienza, defense counsel Eduardo de los Angeles presented a copy of the disbursement voucher on the Land Bank check containing the Manila government’s P34.7-million payment for the property belonging to Basa-Guidote Enterprises Inc. (BGEI), a company owned by the family of Cristina Corona.
Cash advance
Atienza testified that both the voucher and the check showed that Corona’s wife received the payment but “in trust for” BGEI.
The former mayor returned to the witness stand more than a month after he first testified for the defense. The defense was trying to show that Corona did not have to declare the P34.7-million payment in his SALNs because it actually belonged to BGEI, received by his wife only “in trust.”
But one SALN showed Corona getting an P11-million cash advance from the BGEI. The amount was eventually returned.
In the continuation of the cross-examination, Samonte called the court’s attention to a supposed discrepancy between two copies of the Land Bank check containing that payment for the BGEI property. He claimed that both copies were certified true copies issued by the Commission on Audit.
The first copy showed the words “Cristina Corona ITF” [“in trust for”] while the second copy the prosecution was using for cross-examination did not, Samonte told senator-judges.
Samonte hit a wall when he repeatedly tried to make Atienza testify on the alleged discrepancy, and that the copies were indeed certified true copies. Atienza earlier told the court the he was not involved in the actual preparation of the document.
Lead defense counsel Serafin Cuevas repeatedly objected, pointing out that Samonte was dealing with exhibits coming from the prosecution itself. What the defense had presented only was a copy of the check payment for the BGEI property, he noted.
Rules on evidence
“The tendency of the cross-examination is to impugn the authenticity of the document that you presented as evidence,” Enrile told Samonte. “In effect, you are impeaching that very evidence that you presented in the first place.”
Santiago later joined the fray and gave Samonte a dressing down.
“You are harassing the witness, that’s what you’re doing!” she said.
The defense also presented Noel Kintanar, who sold a unit at Bonifacio Ridge in Taguig City to Mrs. Corona, who testified that the unit was officially turned over on Dec. 21, 2010, although it had been purchased in 2005. The defense said this was the reason this was not reflected in Corona’s SALN.
