INADMISSIBLE / JPE: CJ TRIAL VERY 'TRYING'
[PHOTO -
Senator-judges confer with Attorney Regis Puno (right), counsel for
Philippines Savings Bank, as the latter presents the signature cards of Chief
Justice Renato Corona in the impeachment trial at the Philippine Senate on
Monday. The senator-judges were comparing the signatures of Corona presented by
the bank with the evidence submitted by the prosecution. Photo by Joseph Vidal, Senate Pool]
MANILA,
FEBRUARY 23, 2012 (INQUIRER) By
Christina Mendez - Lawyers of Chief Justice Renato Corona said yesterday
evidence obtained through unlawful means could be inadmissible in his
impeachmernt trial.
Defense lawyer Tranquil Salvador III said information revealed by Philippine
Savings Bank (PSBank) president Pascual Garcia III raised questions about the
gathering of evidence by the prosecution against Corona.
"It's serious because AMLC has the duty to respect the rules on bank secrecy
and foreign currency deposit," Salvador said, referring to the Anti-Money
Laundering Council.
Salvador said the possibility that government resources may have been tapped
to look into Corona's bank accounts may destroy the argument of the prosecution
that they are not covered by the exclusionary rule that prevents disclosure of
accounts of any individual.
Another spokesman for the defense, Karen Jimeno, said the
controversy surrounding the source and authenticity of bank documents of the
Chief Justice was delaying the trial. However, she said the defense finds the
information pertaining to Corona's alleged bank accounts irrelevant in Article 2
of the impeachment complaint.
"In terms of impact, as we can see, it is causing delay because we still need
to find where the leaked documents came from. In terms of the merits, it does
not have any difference because in the first place these bank accounts are
irrelevant. This is not in (Articles) 2.2 or 2.3. Nevertheless, we are still
ready to answer the issues about the SALN," Jimeno said.
[PHOTO - DRILON CHATS WITH DEFENSE, PROSECUTION: Senator Franklin
Drilon (2nd from right) shares a light moment with defense
lawyer Ramon Esguerra and prosecution lead counsel Rep. Niel Tupas during
a break at the 17th day of the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona.
BERNARD TESTA/INTERAKSYON.COM/SENATE POOL (February 14,
2012).]
Defense lawyer Ramon Esguerra said Corona's alleged signature
documents merit another Senate investigation. "A Senate investigation may be
called independent of the impeach trial," Esguerra said.
Expunge PSBank-related testimonies, documents
In their 15-page memorandum, the defense reiterated their call to "expunge or
exclude" information related to all of Corona's bank accounts from the records
of the impeachment court because they are deemed "inadmissible."
"No less than the Constitution declares the illegally acquired information on
the CJ Corona bank accounts inadmissible. The suggestion that the remedy is to
file a criminal case for violation of right to privacy of CJ Corona is
illusory," the defense said.
The defense also wanted to exclude from the record evidence presented
pertaining to the prosecution's supplemental request for subpoena dated Feb. 3;
prohibit the presentation of further evidence on Corona's alleged bank records
and quash all subpoena ad testificandum et duces tecum issued pertaining to the
PSBank accounts of Corona.
The defense submitted their memorandum prior to the latest developments
yesterday that the photocopy of Corona's signature card, which the prosecution
submitted along with its supplemental memo for subpoena, may have come from an
audit team by the Banko Sentral ng Pilipinas and the AMLC.
The defense cited reasons such as the source of the documents is some unknown
"small woman;" since Secretary of Justice Leila de Lima is testifying for the
prosecution, it cannot be expected that she will prosecute the involved
congressmen and all those who are helping in the prosecution of Corona; and even
if it were to be assumed for the sake of argument that somebody can be
prosecuted and convicted, it is likely that President Aquino will pardon anybody
convicted as such.
The defense contradicted the prosecution's stand over the exclusionary rule
regarding illegally obtained evidence, which the prosecution claims not only
apply to private persons who conducted the illegal search, and to those who
secure documents through a subpoena duces tecum, if it involves a matter
protected by the right to privacy.
"What the exclusionary rule means, if the root of the evidence is illegal,
all evidences that follow will not be included or inadmissible," Salvador
explained in an interview.
"Once it is proven that all the documents they attached to their supplemental
request for subpoena are not proper, illegal and questionable, all the documents
they (prosecution) gathered, will be excluded," he added.
Inadmissibility
In their memorandum, they also cited the case of Zulueta vs. Court of Appeals
where the SC ruled as inadmissible the seizure of cancelled checks, letters from
alleged paramours, greeting cards, diaries, passports and photographs.
They also cited that private persons are covered by prohibition against the
disclosure of foreign currency deposits. The language of the law itself leaves
no room for doubt as to the scope of the secrecy of foreign currency deposits,
the defense said.
"In this impeachment trial, the bank documents and information that the
prosecution seeks to introduce are protected by law. Whether the documents were
given to, found or stolen by the prosecution, the information itself may not be
disclosed under any circumstances," the defense argued.
The defense added the sole exception is the written waiver of the depositor.
"Therefore, even assuming that the acquisition of the bank information was
voluntarily given by the bank personnel to the prosecution, the disclosure of
the information is still illegal and precludes this Honorable Impeachment Court
from admitting or allowing the same to remain on record," the defense counsels
said.
"It stands to reason that the applicability of the poisonous tree doctrine my
have little or no bearing because the information sought to be introduced by the
prosecution is prohibited by RA 6426," they added.
"In other words, because the articles involved in this impeachment trial
refer to bank accounts of CJ Corona and his family, which are lawful property
and not subject to immediate seizure like prohibited drugs, the bank accounts
are protected by the right to privacy, and the secrecy and confidentiality of
certain laws, and may not be intruded upon by a subpoena, issued upon fake or
false documents presented to the impeachment court," the defense added.
"Without any reliable basis to stand on, the subpoena issued by the
impeachment court is invalid and void."
The defense reiterated that "fake documents" cannot be the basis for the
issuance of subpoena to the banks.
They pointed out that Garcia and PSBank Katipunan branch manager Annabelle
Tiongson have testified before the court that the documents attached to the
supplemental request for subpoena duce tecum are "fake documents and do not
correspond to documents of PSBank."
"The prosecutors cannot insist on using them as basis for the issuance of
subpoena in this case," the defense said.
The defense also cited Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code that, "any
person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in any judicial proceedings or
to the damage of another or who, with the intent to cause such damage, shall use
any of the false documents embraced in the next preceding article, or in any of
the foregoing subdivisions of this article, shall be punished by the penalty
next lower in degree."
Meanwhile, Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago said yesterday that the failure by
the prosecution team to explain how it got hold of the alleged bank documents of
Corona could only mean that this was obtained illegally.
Santiago said that the Rules of Court and the provisions of RA 6426 or the
Foreign Currency Deposit Act are very clear about the possession of illegally
obtained documents, in this case the bank documents of Corona.
Citing Rule 131, sec. 3 (j) of the Rules of Court, Santiago noted that "a
person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful
act is the taker and the doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things which a
person possess, or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him."
"The law says, if you cannot explain that, it can only mean that you stole
that," Santiago said in a mix of Filipino and English.
The prosecution panel has been pressed to explain the circumstances behind
its possession of the PSBank records of Corona, which it attached as annexes in
its supplemental request for subpoena from the Senate.
Two particular issues were raised about the prosecution's documents, the
prohibition on the release of these to the public and the allegation that these
were fake.
Tiongson recently told the court that Quezon City Rep. Jorge Banal visited
her branch last Jan. 31 and showed her photocopies of what looked like the
documents of Corona in the branch.
The senator-judge said that she was shocked to see those documents in the
possession of Banal considering that if those were real, it could only mean that
those were leaked from the bank in violation of existing bank secrecy laws.
Santiago said that Tiongson had every reason to feel disturbed by that visit
by Banal and his possession of the bank documents "because even only
subconsciously, you remembered that you and he were talking about a foreign
currency deposit that did not belong to him."
Santiago pointed out that under RA 6426, the prohibition on disclosure of
foreign currency deposits is absolute and that the only exception to this is if
the owner of the account would allow this in writing.
"Even any ordinary person, without showing any motive or fraudulent
intention, the minute he walks into a bank and asks about a foreign currency
deposit from the branch manager, the branch manager's head should already
resound with bells and whistles because the law prohibits you, not only from
giving information, but even the person or the visitor from asking about it,"
Santiago said.
Santiago said that in her personal view as a lawyer and as a judge, the
legislator who approached Tiongson with those documents was already in violation
of the law.
"I raise this question with you, just to assure you, since you look so
miserable there on the witness stand, that what you were doing was completely
correct. You were acting pursuant exactly to the language of the law, unlike the
lawmaker, who although a lawmaker, was already a lawbreaker," Santiago said.
"Perhaps the people should read the law more carefully, particularly if they
are entrusted in making the law," she added. – With Marvin
Sy
Enrile: CJ trial is also 'trying' my patience By
Ira Pedrasa, ABS-CBNNews.com Posted at 02/20/2012 12:49 PM | Updated as of
02/20/2012 4:27 PM
MANILA, Philippines - Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile said he is
slowly realizing that being presiding officer of the impeachment trial is not
something he relishes.
In a speech before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on Friday, the
88-year-old but still sharp lawyer said: "Not only do I have to carefully study
the legalities of all the issues and concerns being raised by both the
Prosecution and the Defense, but I also have to consider and balance the
divergent and, most of the time, opposing views of my colleagues, my fellow
Senator-Judges."
He said presiding over an impeachment trial, characterized by diverse
personalities, "is simply very trying, no pun intended."
He took note of the subpoena that the court issued on the bank documents of
Chief Justice Renato Corona.
He said the law on the confidentiality of bank deposits, Republic Act 1405,
exempted impeachment cases on the general rule of secrecy of bank deposits,
especially pertaining to local currency accounts.
The impeachment court also allowed the opening of the dollar accounts, but
later backtracked because of a stay order from the Supreme Court.
Impeach court subject to Bill of Rights
"One thing that I can assure the public though is that this consensus was
painstakingly arrived at because most, if not all, of us believed that, in
carrying out our duty as an Impeachment Court, we remain under, and not above,
the Rule of Law," he noted.
Enrile was one of the 13 who voted to respect the high court's halt order.
"Indeed, even as the 'sole power' to try and decide all cases of impeachment
is lodged on the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court, the actual exercise of
that awesome power is subject to the Bill of Rights enshrined in the
Constitution," he added.
He said that the impeachment process, being a very powerful tool, can't be
subject to use and misuse.
He said it is his duty not to allow this despite the trying role of a
presiding officer.
Lawmakers should not be law-breakers
He said the filing of an impeachment case against heads of government with
the Senate does not "erase, modify, or affect" the operation of the separation
of powers.
Some senator-judges believe that the impeachment court is "supreme."
"The Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court must at all times observe the
Rule of Law. It cannot transgress any of the applicable provisions of the Bill
of Rights. It must be guided by the presumption of innocence before the
pronouncement of guilt. It must at all times observe the principle of procedural
and substantial due process," he said.
He said lawmakers should not be "law-breakers."
"It cannot use its power to issue compulsory processes to compel any witness
to appear and testify and, in testifying, is forced to commit a crime. It cannot
compel a witness to testify against himself. It cannot arbitrarily declare a
person guilty of contempt and deprive that person of his or her liberty. It
cannot violate the laws passed by Congress of which it is an integral part," he
added.
Rule of law
He said the decision of the court will have a serious impact on the entire
nation.
"Its success or failure to achieve the purpose for which the Constitution has
provided this mechanism as part of our system of checks and balances and of
public accountability, may spell the success or failure of our democratic
institutions, the strengthening or weakening of our sense of justice as a
people, our stability or disintegration as a nation, and the triumph or demise
of the rule of law in our land," he said.
He noted he and other senator-judges have a heavy burden to carry. He said
the people's faith in the Senate is also at stake.
"At this point, the only assurance I can give to the public is this -- that,
as Presiding Officer, I will always be fair, just and impartial," he said.
"Personally, however, whatever the outcome may be, I will leave it to our
people and to history to judge me based on my actions and decisions as Presiding
Officer and a juror of this Impeachment Court," he added.
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/
