May 7, 2012
Enrile discharges defense witnesses for irrelevance
BY WENDELL VIGILIA and JP LOPEZ
MALAYA
MALAYA
SENATE President Juan Ponce Enrile yesterday discharged defense witnesses whose testimonies he considered “impertinent, irrelevant, and immaterial” to the impeachment case against Chief Justice Renato Corona.
“What I’m trying to avoid here is cluttering these proceedings with so many immaterial issues,” he told the defense panel at the resumption of the impeachment trial after more than a month’s break.
Day 35 of the trial which started at 2 p.m. adjourned shortly past 5 p.m. because of the absence of other witnesses.
Enrile walked the talk after announcing he would be stricter in accepting witnesses and would not allow “delaying tactics” from both parties.
“What we are trying to do here is not to clutter these proceedings with irrelevant and immaterial information. We are wasting time here,” Enrile whose exasperation was painted all over his face.
To support Enrile’s call for faster proceedings, Senate President Pro Tempore Jinggoy Estrada asked the defense panel to just present Corona “so we’ll finally know the whole truth.”
The Senate has only 15 remaining days at the most to finish the deliberations, including the rebuttal from the prosecution panel.
Earlier yesterday after a caucus, senator-judges agreed to finish the trial by May 31.
“We will not go beyond the 31st of May,” Enrile said after the caucus.
Congress will go on sine die adjournment on June 8. Session will resume on July 22.
To beat the May 31 deadline, Enrile proposed to extend the trial from 2 p.m. to 10 p.m., Mondays to Thursdays.
The current schedule is 2 to around 7 p.m. which is already an extension of the 2-5 p.m. hearing schedule when the trial started on January 16.
“We will prolong the hearing as long as the stamina of both panels will be able to sustain it,” said Enrile, who turned 88 last February.
“Kung hindi nila kaya ay sabihin nila sa amin pero ako, kaya ko. I’m really trying to finish this case because I’m rushing it but the country requires that we must settle this case one way or the other,” he said.
The defense team thumbed down the proposal to hold marathon hearings just to come up with a verdict before the month ends.
Defense spokeswoman Karen Jimeno said while the defense supports Enrile’s move to speed up proceedings and finish the trial by the end of the month, lead defense counsel Serafin Cuevas might not be able to endure the longer hours. Cuevas turns 84 next month.
The matter of extending hearing hours will be taken up in a caucus, said Senate majority leader Vicente Sotto III.
Defense lawyer and spokesman Ramon Esguerra said that the defense should be done presenting evidence by next week.
The witnesses dismissed by Enrile were Analyn Moises, records keeper of City of Manila, and Efleda Castro, the Manila Market administrator whose testimonies were being offered by the defense to prove that the sale of a lot owned by the Basa-Guidote Enterprises Inc. (BGEI) worth at least P30 million to the city government in 2001 was above board.
Enrile said the witnesses’ testimonies are not needed by the court because the transaction is irrelevant to the three Articles of Impeachment against Corona who is accused of betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution.
“To tell you the truth, the witnesses you’ve brought here this afternoon…people who’ll testify on collection of fees, to identify records, what’s that got to do with the impeachment trial?” he told the defense.
Corona, in his 2004 statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN), declared a loan of P11 million from the BGEI, a company owned by the family of his wife Cristina, and continued to declare the loan as his liability until 2009.
The defense tried to present Moises and Castro after Noel Quintanar, former head of the commercial operations of the Fort Bonifacio Development Corp., who testified that the Corona couple’s P9.1-million condominium unit at the Bonifacio Ridge was turned over to the couple only in 2010.
The defense claims that the unit, which was bought in 2006, was declared only in Corona’s December 2010 SALN because of the late turnover caused by repairs that the developer had to make in the unit.
The defense, represented by counsel Judd Roy III, eventually had to ask the court to adjourn the proceedings because the defense has no other witnesses to present for the day.
‘JUST BRING CORONA’
Enrile was piqued when Cuevas told the court that the prosecution has no case against Corona, in reaction to Estrada who asked the defense to just present Corona.
“Then that’s your problem if that’s your position. If you think there’s no case presented here in this court,” Enrile bluntly told Cuevas.
Enrile reminded Cuevas, a retired associate justice of the Supreme Court, that they are both lawyers “who are trained in the art.”
“We respect your skills, your ability to appreciate evidence but equally we expect you to respect our ability to appreciate the evidence, too,” Enrile told Cuevas.
Enrile said the court cannot be accused of not affording Corona due process and guaranteeing the defense a “fair trial.”
Cuevas said the defense is not trying to delay the proceedings and only wants to shed light on the BGEI transaction.
He even reacted to Estrada for allegedly “admonishing” them, saying there is no law that compels his client to face the proceedings.
Estrada said he was merely “voicing out” the sentiment of the impeachment court whose members, he said, “will be very, very happy to hear his (Corona) side.”
“Dun pa lang siguro makakapagbuo na kami ng desisiyon…Kung walang tinatago si Chief Justice, bakit di na lang siya dalhin dito?” Estrada said.
DEADLINE
Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago said the Senate has authority to set the deadline for the presentation of evidence in the impeachment trial.
She cited the impeachment case of former US President Bill Clinton, which took only a little over a month.
Santiago said that under the rules of court, the court has the power to stop further presentation of evidence on a particular point “when the evidence is already so full that some witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably expected to be additionally persuasive.”
Santiago however made it clear that such power of the court should be exercised with caution.
Santiago also manifested that pieces of evidence related to alleged irregularities in the sale of the BGEI lot are “irrelevant” to the trial.
She said the pieces of evidence should be submitted to the solicitor general and not to the impeachment court.
MORE ON BGEI
Former Manila mayor Lito Atienza, who transacted with Mrs. Corona on the sale of the BGEI lot, returned to the witness stand for cross-examination.
Atienza, before the recess of the impeachment trial last March, said that in 2001, the BGEI authorized Mrs. Corona to sell one of its properties to the Manila City government for P34 million.
A few days after Atienza’s testimony, however, the office of the Manila city auditor issued a notice disallowing the payment of P34.7 million to BGEI for the parcel of land, citing non-compliance and non-submission of certain requirements.
During cross examination, prosecution private lawyer Renato Samonte said the prosecution would try to show that Atienza acquired the lot for a much higher price than the prevailing real estate rates then.
Samonte said the Manila government in 2001 bought a certain property from Everlasting Corporation worth only P25,000 per square meter, while the 1,020-square meter BGEI property was bought for P35,000 per square.
Atienza said the prosecution could not accuse him of overpricing.
“I have never, never done that,” he said.
Santiago chided Samonte for “harassing” Atienza.
“You are asking the wrong witness…You are forcing him to a conclusion of fact. You are harassing the witness,” Santiago said.
This was after Samonte forced Atienza to verify two copies of a check issued by the city government.
Santiago said Samonte should ask the Commission on Audit instead of Atienza about two certified copies of the check payable to Mrs. Corona in trust for Basa Guidote Enterprises Inc.
DE LIMA, ANGARA
The impeachment court denied the prosecution’s motion opposing the defense move to call Justice Secretary Leila de Lima back to the witness stand.
“The motion to quash is denied,” Enrile said, and directed the defense team to confer with De Lima to determine the date and time of her appearance.
Corona’s lawyers, in a motion, sought the inhibition of Sen. Edgardo Angara, mainly for possible bias, being the father of a prosecution spokesman, Rep. Juan Edgardo Angara.
Rep. Miro Quimbo, another spokesman of the prosecution, said the motion was “suspect,” and if one follows the rationale of the defense, the defense should also seek the inhibition of Enrile and Estrada, whose son and brother, respectively, voted to impeach Corona last year.
Rep. Angara said the defense is merely sowing intrigues.
Sen. Angara said it is his “constitutional duty to act as a judge.”
The defense team withdrew its motion to subpoena several members of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism.
“After examination of our position and relevant matters in our possession, we have finally arrived at the conclusion that we may dispense with the testimony (of these witnesses),” Cuevas said.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - –
RELATED STORIES:
Senator Angara asked to inhibit from sitting as judge
Defense: Senator can’t be impartial
By Marlon Ramos
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Senator Edgardo Angara. INQUIRER file photo
Citing conflict of interest, defense lawyers on Monday moved to inhibit Senator Edgardo Angara from sitting as a judge in the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona.
In a seven-page motion, the defense counsels said recent events, including the approval by the government of multibillion-peso projects in Angara’s home province of Aurora, may affect the senator’s “partiality in favor of the Liberal Party and President Benigno C. Aquino.”
Corona’s lawyers also noted that Angara’s son, Aurora Rep. Juan Edgardo “Sonny” Angara, was a member of House prosecution panel as a spokesman.
“Without doubt, the grounds for the inhibition of [Angara] are clear and unequivocal,” the lawyers said.
“The mere participation of [Angara’s son] in any aspect of these proceedings places [the senator] in a position of potential conflict. What seems to be missed in all this is that [Sonny] is the son and direct descendant of Senator-judge Angara,” they added.
The defense earlier called for the inhibition of Sen. Franklin Drilon, who had been accused of working with the prosecution lawyers.
The petition against Angara was signed by Corona’s lead counsel, retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Serafin Cuevas, and defense lawyers Noel Lazaro, Jose Roy III and Dennis Manalo.
“I won’t inhibit myself because it’s my constitutional duty, it’s a duty imposed on us not because we like it but because the Constitution says that senators be the judges in case of impeachment,” Angara told reporters.
“I had nothing to do with the appointment of my son as a spokesperson, even as a prosecutor,” he said. “Sonny is not a party litigant nor is he going to be substantially benefited by whatever is the outcome of the impeachment,” he said. “There’s no such conflict of interest. The grounds that they are citing … are without basis.”
The defense said “it cannot be denied” that Angara’s son had signified his intention to join the Liberal Party’s senatorial lineup in the 2013 elections.
It said the approval of the infrastructure projects that Angara “successfully worked for” would help Sonny’s political ambition and “will surely be claimed as accomplishments of the Angara political leadership in Aurora province.”
These projects included the P1.66-billion Baler-Casiguran Road Improvement Project and the P798.56-million Umiray Bridge Construction Project in Aurora and the P1.81-billion Samar Pacific Coastal Road Project in the Visayas region.
“The scale and timing of these projects appear more as political favors and inducements, rather than just honest-to-goodness responses to development concerns,” the defense said.
“While such projects may involve legitimate infrastructure projects, their approval seems timed to coincide with the voting period of the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Corona and in preparation for the forthcoming 2013 national elections.”
The defense stressed that the Code of Judicial Conduct clearly stipulated that a judge related by “consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the sixth degree or to counsel within the fourth degree” should not participate in a case involving relatives.
“There is no question that this mandatory prohibition applies to the instant case. This ground is singularly sufficient to warrant the recusal of Senator-judge Angara,” Corona’s counsels said.
They said that it was a “well-known rule that the lawyer and his agents are inseparable in legal effect and the conduct of one binds the other.”
In a press briefing, the younger Angara said the defense move was unfair and could mean a vote of acquittal for Corona.
Sonny Angara said it was also a strategy of the defense to prevent the prosecutors from getting the required 16 votes to convict Corona for betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution.
He also dismissed speculations that his inclusion in the prosecution team as spokesman as well as President Aquino’s endorsement of him in a town fiesta as a Liberal Party senatorial candidate recently was meant to boost his chances in the 2013 elections.
“I don’t see it as an out-and-out endorsement because I don’t think the political season has begun,” he said.—With a report from Cynthia D. Balana
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
Prosecutors: Atienza testimony didn’t help Corona
ABS-CBNnews.com
MANILA, Philippines – Prosecutors on Monday said the testimony of former Manila Mayor Lito Atienza in the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona did not help the defense.
Prosecution spokesman Rep. Lorenzo Tañada III said Atienza’s testimony did not show where the money from the sale expropriation of the Basa-Guidote Enterprises Inc. over a property in the City of Manila was deposited.
He said the expropriation transaction itself raises so many questions like the conflicting claims of the Coronas and the Basas.
Earlier in the hearing, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago said questions on the possible anomalies in the transactions are irrelevant.
Tañada, however, said Santiago is just one of many senators who may think differently.
He said the defense also admitted that Corona participated in the transaction despite earlier denials of his involvement.
Another prosecution spokesman, Rep. Miro Quimbo, said Atienza’s testimony also failed to show that the alleged Corona money in accounts in Bank of Philippines Islands (BPI) and Philippines Savings Bank (PSBank) are indeed proceeds of the BGEI transaction.
Quimbo said that unless they show this, the defense will not be able to show that the Coronas do not own the money and therefore do not need to be declared or disclosed.
He said Atienza only showed that checks were issued in connection with the transaction.
No comments:
Post a Comment