Unexplained or ill-gotten wealth?

By Ellen Tordesillas

Malaya

‘“What is the difference between “unexplained wealth” and “ill-gotten wealth”? A lot, if you read RA 3019 and RA 7080.’

THE prosecution’s clumsy preparation of the Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Renato Corona has caught up with them.

Last Wednesday, the impeachment court trying Chief Justice Renato Corona decided to reject the prosecution’s request to present evidence in relation to the alleged ill-gotten wealth of Chief Justice Renato Corona.

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, acting as the impeachment court’s presiding officer, said: “This impeachment court has arrived at a decision in that caucus that this court will allow the introduction of evidence and impeachment on article 2 paragraph 2.2 and 2.3 but not the introduction of evidence of paragraph 2.4. And so parties must be guided accordingly,” Enrile said.

Paragraph 2.4 states: “Respondent is likewise suspected and accused of having accumulated ill-gotten wealth, acquiring assets of high values and keeping bank accounts with huge deposits.”

Article of Impeachment No. 2 deals with Corona’s non-disclosure of his statement of assets liabilities and net worth.

The impeachment court allowed the presentation of evidence related to paragraph 2.2 of Article 2, dealing with Corona’s failure to publicly disclose his SALN, and paragraph 2.3, regarding the allegation he did not declare a number of his alleged properties in his SALN.

Senator Francis Escudero has pointed out what was wrong with the jumbled issues raised by Article 2.

The prosecution, as expected, was dismayed. That means that all the evidence they claim to have gathered to prove that Corona has ill-gotten wealth would just be presented in press conferences, as they have been doing the past week.

Prosecution panel spokesman Marikina City Rep. Miro Quimbo said based on what they have presented in the impeachment court, Corona has amassed wealth of at least P10 million which reported income from 2006 to 2010 could not support.

“There is a variance of P10 million. This means that there is an unexplained increase in Corona’s wealth based on what he reported in his SALN, which is also not supported by his salary and that of his wife,” he said in a press conference.

Wait a minute. Quimbo used the world “unexplained”. Have they abandoned “ill-gotten”?

SaxnViolins, who has patiently illuminated visitors in my blog on the legal intricacies in the impeachment trial has this to say:

“What a difference a phrase makes.”

“What is the difference between “unexplained wealth” and “ill-gotten wealth”? A lot, if you read RA 3019 and RA 7080.

“RA 3019 is the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act while RA 7080 is An Act Defining and Penalizing Plunder.

“Unexplained wealth is defined as:

Section 8. Dismissal due to unexplained wealth. If in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act Numbered One thousand three hundred seventy-nine, a public official has been found to have acquired during his incumbency, whether in his name or in the name of other persons, an amount of property and/or money manifestly out of proportion to his salary and to his other lawful income, that fact shall be a ground for dismissal or removal. Properties in the name of the spouse and unmarried children of such public official may be taken into consideration, when their acquisition through legitimate means cannot be satisfactorily shown. Bank deposits shall be taken into consideration in the enforcement of this section, notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary.

“So unexplained wealth, as stated in the above-cited case of Simplicio Berdon, enjoys a legal presumption. The burden shifts to the Defendant, to prove that he acquired the property legally.

“But “ill-gotten wealth” is defined as follows:

Section 1 d) Ill-gotten wealth means any asset, property, business enterprise or material possession of any person within the purview of Section Two (2) hereof, acquired by him directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business associates by any combination or series of the following means or similar schemes:

1) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury;

2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any other form of pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the office or position of the public officer concerned;

3) By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the National Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities or government-owned or -controlled corporations and their subsidiaries;

4) By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest or participation including promise of future employment in any business enterprise or undertaking;

5) By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations and/ or implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special interests; or

6) By taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.

“There is no presumption here. By definition, “ill-gotten wealth” is by the means with which it has been acquired, such as:

1) Misappropriating public funds

2) Receiving a commission or kickback

3) Illegal or fraudulent conversion of assets belonging to the National government, etc.

“The prosecution has to prove that property was acquired by the means stated in the definition.

“Article 2.4 of the Articles of Impeachment states:

“2.4. Respondent is likewise suspected and accused of having accumulated ill-gotten wealth, acquiring assets of high values and keeping bank accounts with huge deposits. ”

SNV further said, “Diyos ko po. Pinahirapan mo naman ang sarili mo Niel Tupas. Had you stated “accumulating unexplained wealth” home free ka na. But now, you need evidence to prove the means of acquisition stated in RA 7080.”

***

Blog:www.ellentordesillas.com

E-mail:ellentordesillas@gmail.com

http://www.malaya.com.ph/01302012/edtorde.html

Chief Justice lied in SALN

AMADO P. MACASAET

MALAYA

‘The prosecutors did not see the bigger offense of falsifying a statement under oath, an offense that may border on the question of betraying public trust or forgery of a public document.’

THE law requires all state workers, including the Chief Justice, to declare or include all assets in the annual statement of assets, liabilities and net worth.

Since the Chief Justice did not include all of his assets in the SALN which is a document under oath, Renato Corona lied under oath as discovered by the Senate trying him for eight alleged offenses.

His SALN shows he falsified the document.

The impeachment court ruled that ill-gotten wealth is not to be admitted as evidence of guilt in Article 2 of the impeachment charges.

But the offense is not exactly in relation to ill-gotten wealth. The charge against the Chief Justice in Article II is refusing to make public his SALN. With the permission of the Supreme Court the document was submitted and examined by the senators sitting as judges.

They discovered that the Chief Justice lied under oath in his SALN by not listing all his assets. We think that the matter is not exactly covered by the ill-gotten wealth law. Therefore the Senate should have admitted the documents as evidence of falsifying a document under oath.

The effect of not admitting the document as evidence ag may well mean the Senate allowed Mr. Corona to conceal ill-gotten wealth. It is the concealment that becomes the offense, not exactly the wealth the Head Magistrate did not disclose in the SALN which is a sworn statement.

This is the issue, not exactly ill-gotten wealth.

The impeachment court should have allowed the documents to be admitted as evidence not of ill-gotten wealth but as wealth undeclared in his SALN which turns out to be falsified.

In other words, while it may be arguably correct for the Senate not to try the Chief Justice on the ill-gotten since the same is not directly alleged, the SALN should be admitted as evidence of lying under oath regarding his wealth, ill-gotten or not.

The Senate seems to be lumping together the question of falsified statement clearly proven in the SALN and ill-gotten wealth which became evident by the same falsification. The two questions – falsified SALN and ill -gotten wealth – must be treated separately.

The Senate can ignore ill-gotten wealth as shown in the SALN, but it cannot close its eyes to the fact that the Chief Justice falsified his SALN. There is no acceptable reason for lying or falsifying a document signed under oath.

The prosecutors did not see the bigger offense of falsifying a statement under oath, an offense that may border on the question of betraying public trust or forgery of a public document.

If only on this point, the prosecution is indeed weak.

Since the prosecution did not object to the concealment of ill-gotten wealth in a falsified SALN, it may well be said that the Senate allowed the Head Magistrate to hide stolen assets and the falsification of a public document. Therefore, the senators are as guilty as the Chief Justice. That is one way of looking at the refusal to accept as evidence the documents showing ill-gotten wealth but ignoring the more serious crime of lying under oath.

The motion of defense to seek the inhibition of Sen. Frank Drilon from participating in the deliberation of Art. 2 is a smoke screen calculated to hide the fact Mr. Corona submitted a falsified statement.

The size of the wealth, stolen or not, is not the question. It should occur to the prosecution that the Chief Justice lied under oath. This is the impeachable offense that the Head Magistrate committed. Therefore, the proof of such lies or falsification should be admitted as evidence without necessarily passing judgment on the ill-gotten wealth discovered in the SALN.

As aptly explained by Senator Drilon, the question of ill-gotten wealth can be dealt with later under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

The prosecution left Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, presiding officer of the impeachment court no choice but to allow the defense argument that the documents showing Corona acquiring ill-gotten wealth should not be accepted as evidence.

The prosecution miserably failed to see the equally important or heinous crime of a Chief Justice lying under oath in his SALN which shows he has ill-gotten wealth. The prosecutors hammered hard on this subject but did not explain the crime of submitting falsified statement.

The whole point is the prosecution succeeded in getting the world to know that the Chief Justice has wealth, the source of which he may be hard put to explain. That made his SALN spurious, a forgery.

http://www.malaya.com.ph/01302012/edmacasaet.html

Senate to convict Corona

BY  JAIME PILAPIL 

THE MANILA TIMES

Verdict aims to spare Aquino from embarrassment — senator

Out of respect for the Office of the President, particularly for a popular leader, majority if not all of the current 23 senator-judges will vote to convict impeached Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona, a respectable senator, who asked not to be identified, recently told a select group of reporters covering the Malacañang beat.The male senator, who is not a member of the ruling Liberal Party, said that only Sen. Joker Arroyo is the remaining senator-judge who is not inclined to vote for the conviction of Corona.He added that the rest, including Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, would accede to the call of President Benigno Aquino 3rd to vote for the expulsion of Corona from the Supreme Court.“I’m sure the senators would heed the call of the President and they would vote for the conviction of the Chief Justice,” the senator told reporters over dinner somewhere in Manila near Malacañang, official residence of President Aquino.

In a bid to give credence to his analysis, he gave a rundown of the voting inclination of the senator-judges.

Corona needs seven votes to acquit and 16 votes to convict.

The four senators from the Liberal Party—Franklin Drilon, Teofisto Guingona 3rd, Ralph Recto and Francis Pangilinan—would vote for conviction, according to the source of The Manila Times.

Of the current 23 senators, six are eligible for reelection in the 2013 polls.

The six senators would be forced to vote for Corona’s conviction so as not to suffer the public wrath since Mr. Aquino is largely popular in the countryside.

They are Alan Peter Cayetano, Francis Escudero, Gregorio Honasan, Loren Legarda, Antonio Trillanes 4th and Aquilino Pimentel 3rd.

The remaining six votes needed to convict the Chief Justice would be easily attainable from Ramon Revilla Jr., Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada, Juan Ponce Enrile, Pia Cayetano, Ferdinand Marcos Jr., Vicente Sotto 3rd, Sergio Osmena 2nd and Lito Lapid.

All of them were winners in the 2010 elections.

Only four are not eligible for reelection in 2013—Joker Arroyo, Pangilinan, Panfilo Lacson and Manuel Villar.

If the President wants to play safe, he could easily get the votes of Pangilinan and Lacson, who, according to The Times source, are salivating for Cabinet posts anyway.

After two weeks, the impeachment court headed by Senate President Enrile was yet to finish presentation of evidence.

Although the impeachment court ruled against the Corona family members taking the witness stand, the prosecution was successful in having the statements of assets, liabilities and net worth of the Chief Justice shown to the senators-judges, including his income-tax returns.

Meanwhile, Malacañang deputy spokesman Abigail Valte on Sunday said that it was still premature to find out the voting inclination of the senator-judges.

“At this point in the proceedings, it is still premature to gauge the senator-judges. The senators are very judicious and comporting as to their behavior,” Valte added.

She said that the voting inclination of the senator-judges would be evident when proceedings at the Senate impeachment court are about to wind up or when the voting on the fate of Corona is fast approaching.

http://www.manilatimes.net/index.php/news/top-stories/16097-senate-to-convict-corona

Prosecutors told: Read Corona’s ruling on Marcos ill-gotten wealth

Source: ABS-CBNnews.com

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/-depth/01/24/12/prosecutors-told-read-coronas-ruling-marcos-ill-gotten-wealth

MANILA, Philippines – When prosecutors submit their position paper on issues surrounding Chief Justice Renato Corona’s alleged ill-gotten wealth, there’s one document they can cite in their favor: Corona’s own decision on the case of the Marcos ill-gotten wealth which resulted in the forfeiture to the Philippine treasury of money hidden in Swiss banks.

In her latest blog entry, journalist and blogger Raissa Robles said prosecutors might not know that they can use Corona’s own decision on the Marcos ill-gotten wealth to prove their case.

Robles said Corona’s “landmark decision on July 15, 2003″ on the Marcos wealth stashed in Swiss banks made the following points:

“He said the burden of proof lies with the person being accused of having amassed such wealth.

“He also said the court should disregard technicalities thrown by the defendant’s side.

“And he said it was enough to compare a respondent’s SALNs (Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth) and ITRs (Income Tax Return) with the wealth in question to determine the latter’s illegal origin. If disclosed income and assets were far less than the questioned wealth, then the latter is ill-gotten.”

Robles said Corona also showed in his decision “how to connect the dots using the SALN and the ITR.”

Robles said Corona, in his ruling, “concluded that the Marcoses’ Net Worth was US$957,487.75 or under ONE MILLION DOLLARS. He then compared this amount to the US$356 million secreted by the Marcoses in five foundations which maintained various Swiss accounts.”

Robles said: “Because of all these, CJ Corona ruled that – In the face of undeniable circumstances and the avalanche of documentary evidence against them, respondent Marcoses failed to justify the lawful nature of their acquisition of the said assets. Hence, the Swiss deposits should be considered ill-gotten wealth and forfeited in favor of the State in accordance with Section 6 of RA 1379…,” Robles said.

For more about Robles’ new blog entry, click here: From his own mouth:
CJ Corona’s guidelines in the use of SALNs & ITRs to prove ill-gotten wealth

JDV talks of GMA role in NBN-ZTE

BY PETER TABINGO

MALAYA

Former Speaker and Pangasinan Rep. Jose de Venecia Jr. testified yesterday at the Sandiganbayan Fourth Division that he joined President Gloria Arroyo, her husband Mike and former Comelec chair Benjamin Abalos Sr. on a visit to the corporate headquarters of ZTE Corp., in Shenzen, China in November 2006 where they dined and played golf with the company’s officials.

De Venecia’s testimony was part of the prosecution’s evidence in the graft trial of Abalos for his alleged unlawful intervention in the overpriced $329 million NBN-ZTE contract.

Under direct examination by Assistant Special Prosecutor Jacinto dela Cruz Jr., De Venecia told the graft court that he received a surprise invitation from Arroyo to play golf while he and his wife Gina were vacationing in Hong Kong during the Halloween break of 2006.

“I didn’t ask where. I thought it was nearby. It was already when we were on the road that she said we were going to Shenzen,” De Venecia said.

He said he joined the Arroyos and Abalos for breakfast at the golf clubhouse and some Chinese personalities that he later came to know were city officials of Shenzen and officials of ZTE.

He said they played a round of golf with Abalos and “two or three” Chinese going in the first flight while he stayed with the Arroyo couple in the second flight.

After the game, De Venecia said their group went to have lunch at the ZTE headquarters.

He said he was “surprised” about the presence of Abalos as neither of the Arroyos informed him that the Comelec chairman would be there.

He said in his mind, he attributed it to the fact that Abalos was an avid golfer.

During lunch, he said a banker whose name he could no longer recall made a pitch that their bank was prepared and willing to provide a “concession loan” to a project proposal of the ZTE in the Philippines.

The Office of the Ombudsman, in separate graft charges filed last December against the Arroyos, former Transport Secretary Leandro Mendoza and Abalos, said the golf game and lunch with ZTE officials constituted criminal offenses for the Arroyo couple because it exhibited their unusual interest in the NBN project.

Prosecutor Dela Cruz marked as evidence a picture taken of the Arroyos, Abalos, De Venecia and a Chinese national on the golf course.

The picture was included in the publication of “Global Filipino – An Authorized Biography of Jose De Venecia Jr.”

Aside from the presence of Abalos, De Venecia said he also noted the absence of media during the visit to Shenzen.

“One of the revelations was, there were no members of the Press. I have joined the former President on many previous trips…practically the entire Malacañang Press Corps was there,” he recalled.

On cross examination by defense lawyer Gabriel Villareal, De Venecia admitted his son, businessman Joey de Venecia III, had told him about his interest in bidding for the NBN project as early as August 2006.

He said he felt proud about Joey’s enthusiasm for the project because his proposal was based on the build-operate-and-transfer scheme that would entail no initial expense on the part of the government.

During the trip to Shenzen, the former Speaker said then President Arroyo told him she thought Joey’s proposal was “very good (maganda).”

Villareal pointed out to the graft court that based on the affidavit submitted to the Senate Blue Ribbon inquiry on the NBN-ZTE deal, the younger De Venecia stated he submitted his proposal only on December 2006 while the Shenzen trip took place a month earlier.

The elder De Venecia explained there were already discussions about the project even before his son Joey formally submitted his proposal in behalf of Amsterdam Holdings Inc.

The former Speaker said aside from what transpired in Shenzen, he did not speak with Arroyo about the ZTE contract again “until many, many months later” when he asked her to cancel the contract because by then reports of massive irregularities relative to the project had come out in the media.

Prosecutors said they will present two or three witnesses at the next hearing on March 5 and 6, including engineer Dante Madriaga, a former ZTE consultant who has testified he had personal knowledge that former President Arroyo received kickbacks during the signing of the NBN-ZTE contract.

http://www.malaya.com.ph/01252012/news2.html