TREE' / PALACE SOURCE OF FAKE DOCS?
[PHOTO - PSBank Manager Annabelle
Tiongson takes the stand]
MANILA,
FEBRUARY 16, 2012 (ABS-CBN) By
David Dizon, ABS-CBNnews.com - A member of Chief Justice Renato Corona's defense
team on Tuesday said the Senate impeachment court could reject Corona's bank
records as evidence in the impeachment trial because it is "the fruit of a
poisoned tree."
Lawyer Ramon Esguerra said he finds highly questionable the prosecution
panel's admission that they got copies of Corona's specimen signature cards from
Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank) from an anonymous source.
He noted that although the Senate impeachment court issued subpoenas for
Corona's bank records, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile also said: "if it was
obtained illegally, we are not saying this is admissible."
"As a result, even if it is produced but it is established that it came from
a poisoned tree, then you cannot use it," Esguerra said in a radio dzMM
interview.
Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor used to describe evidence
that is obtained illegally. The logic of the terminology is that if the
source of the evidence is tainted, then anything gained from it is tainted as
well.
The Senate on Monday granted the prosecution's request to subpoena
Corona's bank records in PSBank and BPI since 2005, including his foreign
currency deposits.
Prosecutors said the bank records are crucial in proving that Corona
misdeclared his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs).
The summonses include a bank account that the prosecution supposedly learned
from an anonymous source. The prosecution claimed the account had an initial
deposit of "$700K", which it interpreted to be $700,000 (around P38 million in
October 2008).
Enrile noted the defense can still tap all legal remedies available to it.
He clarified that the decision of the court was only to subpoena the
documents. Whether these will be admissible in court will later on be resolved,
he said.
Corona might sue
In the interview, Lawyer Ramon Esguerra said Corona will be
talking to the defense team Tuesday morning to discuss their next move in the
trial.
Asked if Corona will file a case over a possible violation of the Bank
Secrecy Law, he said: "There was a violation of the law because there was
premature disclosure. That is a possibility. That is why there must be a deeper
investigation."
He said PSBank should conduct an investigation on how the prosecution was
able to get copies of Corona's specimen cards.
"Maybe the bank on its own will conduct an investigation if there was a leak
on their end. Tayo naman magmamatyag and will ask what really happened and if
there is anyone who has the right to sue whether a bank employee or ....pwede
naman dahil violation ito," he said.
During Monday's hearing, prosecutor Rey Umali said he was the one who
received an envelope, containing the specimen signature cards of the account in
question, from a "small lady."
He said he could not remember the circumstances anymore, but he received it
on Thursday on his way to the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH). "I
could have been at the secretariat and on my way out going to the DPWH."
Esguerra said the Senate limited the subpoena for the bank records to
relevant years based on the SALNs. The subpoenas are for ending balances for
Corona's account in the Bank of Philippine Islands from 2005-2010; and ending
balances for Corona's account in PSBank from 2007-2010.
The lawyer said the prosecutors must also prove the relationship of the bank
records to the issue of misdeclaration of Corona's SALNs.
"They are looking at the materiality. Kung wala naman relasyon itong
pina-subpoena nila sa Article 2 sa impeachment complaint, babalewalain din ito
ng Senado," he said.
Palace denies being source of CJ bank docs By
Willard Cheng, ABS-CBN News Posted at 02/15/2012 3:04 PM | Updated as of
02/15/2012 4:38 PM
MANILA, Philippines - Malacañang on Wednesday said it is not behind
the leak of the alleged bank documents of Chief Justice Renato Corona.
"Malacañang has no access to these records. As testified to by the bank
manager herself, sila lang 'yung may custody at sila 'yung may access," Deputy
Presidential Spokesperson Abigail Valte said.
Presidential Spokesman Edwin Lacierda earlier said he is convinced that the
questioned bank documents purportedly in the name of Chief Justice Corona and
presented by the House prosecution panel are genuine.
He said the bank account numbers have been proven to be existing as allegedly
shown in the testimony of Philippine Savings Bank President Pascual Garcia.
He said that if there are differences in the balance amount, it is something
for the bank president and manager to reconcile.
"Ano ba ang fake? Fake ang account number e mayroong account number doon sa
PSBank eh. Kung signature card, pirmado naman po ni Chief Justice Corona 'yun.
So I suppose they're protecting their bank because there's a violation of the
Bank Secrecy Law so I would assume that the bank will do everything to protect
itself from liability from the Bank Secrecy Law. But what has been proven is
that it is not fake insofar as the account numbers, insofar as the figures are
there," Lacierda said.
Lacierda questioned PSBank branch manager Anabelle Tiongson's inference in
her testimony that the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas has previously taken a look
at the bank records.
"Nililihis. Pinapasa sa BSP. It was a very slight but a very sly accusation
on the BSP," he said.
Prosecutors earlier presented as evidence some bank records they supposedly
got from an anonymous source.
During Monday's hearing, Tiongson testified that a document on Corona's
alleged dollar account submitted by the prosecution is "fake."
"Yes sir, they're fake documents," Tiongson said. "Yes sir. These did not
come from our bank."
FROM THE INTERNET LEGAL
DICTIONARY
WHAT IS 'THE FRUIT OF THE POISONED TREE'?
The principle that prohibits the use of secondary evidence in trial that
was culled directly from primary evidence derived from an illegal Search
and Seizure.
The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is an offspring of the
Exclusionary Rule. The exclusionary rule mandates that evidence obtained from an
illegal arrest, unreasonable search, or coercive interrogation must be excluded
from trial.
Under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, evidence is also excluded
from trial if it was gained through evidence uncovered in an illegal arrest,
unreasonable search, or coercive interrogation.
Like the exclusionary rule, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine was
established primarily to deter law enforcement from violating rights against
unreasonable searches and seizures.
The name fruit of the poisonous tree is thus a metaphor: the poisonous tree
is evidence seized in an illegal arrest, search, or interrogation by law
enforcement. The fruit of this poisonous tree is evidence later discovered
because of knowledge gained from the first illegal search, arrest, or
interrogation. The poisonous tree and the fruit are both excluded from a
criminal trial.
The Supreme Court first hinted at the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine in
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 40 S. Ct. 182, 64 L. Ed.
319 (1920). In Silverthorne, defendant Frederick W. Silverthorne was arrested on
suspicion of federal violations in connection with his lumber business.
Government agents then conducted a warrantless, illegal search of the
Silver-thorne offices. Based on the evidence discovered in the search, the
prosecution requested more documents, and the court ordered Silverthorne to
produce the documents. Silverthorne refused and was jailed for Contempt of
court.
On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the contempt judgment. In its argument
to the High Court, the government conceded that the search was illegal and that
the prosecution was not entitled to keep the documents obtained in it. However,
the government held that it was entitled to copy the documents and use knowledge
gained from the documents for future prosecution. The Court rejected this
argument. According to the Court, "[T]he essence of forbidding the acquisition
of evidence in a certain way is that … it shall not be used at all."
Silverthorne concerned only evidence gained in the first illegal search or
seizure, but the wording of the opinion paved the way for the exclusion of
evidence gained in sub-sequent searches and seizures.
Chief News Editor: Sol
Jose Vanzi
© Copyright, 2012 by PHILIPPINE HEADLINE
NEWS ONLINE
All rights reserved
PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS
ONLINE [PHNO] WEBSITE
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/phnotweet
This is the PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE (PHNO) Mailing List.
To stop receiving our news items, please send a blank e-mail addressed to: phno-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Please visit our homepage at: http://www.newsflash.org/
(c) Copyright 2009. All rights reserved.
-------------------------------------------------------------Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phno/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phno/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
phno-digest@yahoogroups.com
phno-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
phno-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
