DOCUMENTS AS EVIDENCE
MANILA,
MARCH 7, 2012 (TRIBUNE) By Angie
M. Rosales - Senators appear to be split on whether to accept into the records
of the impeachment court what the defense panel brands as illegally-obtained
evidence of the prosecution.
The objection is with regard to the purported "fake" documents on the alleged
undisclosed peso and dollar accounts of Chief Justice Renato Corona, which
documents were presented and submitted to the impeachment court by the
prosecution.
The senators sitting as judges in the impeachment court are scheduled to hold
a caucus on the matter today as well as the imposition of penalty on prosecution
private counsel Vitaliano Aguirre II who was cited for contempt last Wednesday.
Sen. Panfilo Lacson yesterday hinted that the impeachment court is likely to
accept the controversial documents as evidence of the prosecution panel.
"The general sentiment (of senators) right now and I can speak (about the)
general sentiment (is to accept it). Of course this will be subject of a
discussion. But as much as possible all evidence that had already been presented
and marked, we will admit as evidence. And we will leave it to the defense panel
to answer point by point all issues and pieces of evidence presented so
far," he said in an interview with reporters.
The matter of applying the principle of a "fruit of a poisonous tree" can
alter the senators' sentiments especially if there has already been a
jurisprudence on this issue, he added.
The said legal doctrine on which the defense panel has been insisting on in
appreciating the bank documents that have been allegedly "leaked" to the
prosecution panel, should make the information inadmissible as evidence.
Lacson said he had already raised in one of their trial proceedings that the
legal doctrine cannot be applied in illegal searches and seizures if the State
or the government does not have any participation in securing the document.
"It cannot be applied if a private individual provided for it," he said.
But in an inquiry conducted by the Senate banks committee, separate from the
impeachment proceedings, on how the alleged leaked documents ended up in the
hands of the prosecution panel, points to an examiner from the Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas as the possible source, which would make the source of the leak a
government officer.
Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile is convinced that BSP examiner Jerry Leal
had leaked Corona's bank documents after the latter conducted an audit on the
records of Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank) last year.
"(But) that is yet to be proven to be valid (information). That was the
suspicion raised by Senator Enrile. That is yet to be resolved. Of course, that
will be relevant to the discussion in determining the admissibility of the
evidence," " he said.
Senators Gregorio Honasan and Antonio Trillanes IV, in separate interviews,
agreed with Lacson in admitting as evidence the said documents.
But Senate President Pro Tempore Jinggoy Estrada and Majority Leader Vicente
Sotto III, in phone interviews, said they are not aware of the supposed emerging
consensus of their colleagues on the matter.
"Whether to accept or expunge that information from the records of the
impeachment court, it doesn't matter really. Each senator has already a decision
(on the case)," said Estrada.
"I cannot intelligently comment on that idea. I do not discuss (the case)
with my colleagues. I really have no idea," Sotto told the Tribune, pertaining
to the supposed general sentiments of senators on the matter, adding that he
does not have any inkling as to who among his colleagues Lacson was referring
to.
"The rule of the majority will be known tomorrow whether we will allow it to
be used as evidence. We will know tomorrow what the majority thinks," he said.
"The general sentiment is, as reflected by the statement of the Senate
president, that there are some questions related to the bank deposits, bank
accounts that only the chief justice can testify to, that's why it leads us to
the issue of it being a 'leaked' document. Since there's a 'leakage' that's a
violation of the law. We also want to know, in aid of legislation, if we need to
revisit the law and hold accounable those responsible for these leaks," said
Honasan.
"For me, it's okay if it will be admitted (as evidence). What difference does
it make in entering it into the records (of the court) when it had been
discussed already on national television?" Honasan pointed out.
Trillanes, in a phone-patched interview with reporters, echoed the position
of Honasan.
"That should no longer be debated on. It should automatically be admitted.
The defense (panel) can always try to suppress it). For me, I have made my
decision, it should be admitted. The defense should explain these bank
accounts," he said.
Sen. Francis "Chiz" Escudero, for his part, said that the prosecution panel
can pursue the issue on Corona's alleged dollar deposits provided that the
Supreme Court has already lifted the temporary restraining order (TRO) it issued
in the opening of the said accounts by the impeachment court.
"They can still present it (as evidence) if the TRO is lifted before the
(impeachment) case is decided by the Senate. It is not ordinarily allowed," he
said.
Meanwhile, House prosecutors have asked the Senate impeachment court to deny
the request of the defense panel to suppress all evidence pertaining to the bank
accounts of the Chief Justice with the PSBank, saying these were neither fake
nor illegally obtained.
Through his lawyers, Corona last week moved for the exclusion of the bank
records – which were covered by two subpoenas issued by the Senate to the
PSBank-Katipunan branch on Feb. 6 and 9 – for allegedly being falsified
documents and obtained in violation of his constitutional rights against illegal
searches and seizure.
The subpoenas resulted in the testimonies of PSBank president Pascual Garcia
III and branch manager Annabelle Tiongson that Corona had at least P32 million
in the Katipunan branch as of Dec. 31, 2010, when he only declared P3.5 million
as "cash and investments" in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth
(SALn) for 2010.
In a 41-page opposition to Corona's "motion to suppress illegally obtained
evidence," prosecutors said the chief magistrate "misappreciated" the
testimonies of the bank executives when he focused merely on their claim that a
bank document detailing Corona's bank accounts and attached as Annex "A" to the
prosecution's request for subpoena were fake.
"It bears emphasis that the respondent (Corona) misappreciated the statements
made by the witnesses in court. His conclusion that Annex 'A' is fake is belied
by the conflicting testimonies of both Tiongson and Garcia," said the
prosecution panel, led by chief public prosecutor Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr, in
a press statement sent to media.
The prosecution media statement said there has been no final determination
that Annex A that was obtained by the prosecution from anonymous source was a
fake document.
"No judicial proceedings have categorically declared that Annex 'A' is indeed
fake. Furthermore, Tiongson and Garcia's testimonies on this point were vague,
indefinite and contained inconsistencies," the prosecution said.
It noted that the PSBank officials merely concluded that Annex A was
counterfeit because it contained certain dissimilarities to the original
document maintained in the bank's records.
"However, they likewise admit that Annex 'A' had similarities, in form and in
the entries, with the original document they had in their custody. Second, all
of the account numbers contained in Annex 'A' are confirmed to have existed in
the Katipunan branch of PSBank," it added.
The allegation that Annex A was fake was inconsistent with their subsequent
claims that the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) and the Anti-Money Laundering
Council (AMLC), which purportedly conducted an audit of PSBank sometime in
September to December 2010, had leaked the document, the prosecution said.
"If Annex 'A' was indeed fake, then it could not have been 'leaked' by BSP
and AMLC. Needless to say, if it was a 'leaked' document originating from
PSBank, how can it be fake? A fake document could not have been illegally
obtained," it stressed.
The prosecution noted that even senator-judges were not convinced that Annex
A was fake, citing a manifestation made by Senator Estrada in one of the
hearings that the document was a faithful reproduction of the original.
It also cited Lacson, who expressed his reservations regarding the claim that
Annex A was fake and suggested that the questioned document be submitted to the
Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory or the National Bureau of
Investigation for examination.
Prosecutors likewise argued that the subpoena, having been validly issued by
the Senate, "does not constitute as an unreasonable search."
The prosecution also said Corona himself impliedly accepted that the bank
accounts were relevant to Article II by publicly admitting that he owned several
currency deposit accounts and declaring that he will disclose them in due time.
Prosecutors also denounced the defense's use of the "fruit of the poisonous
tree," saying the doctrine only applies to search and seizure cases and not to
subpoenas.
"Respondent obviously tries to confuse this Honorable Court by applying rules
which are only applicable to search warrants," they said.
They also contended that there was "no exclusionary effect" when a subpoena
is quashed, meaning any defect in the subpoena does not taint the evidence
resulting from its issuance.
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/
