This developed as Senators Juan Ponce Enrile, Francisco Tatad, John Osmeña and Robert Jaworski lashed out at the threat of some prosecutors to walk out if the impeachment court will expunge from the record the testimony of Equitable PCI bank senior vice president and trust officer Clarissa Ocampo.
The prosecution panel secured subpoenas for the surrender of documents pertaining to the Velarde deposits in Allied Bank, Bank of Commerce, two branches of Equitable PCI Bank, Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, Metrobank, Philippine National Bank, United Overseas Bank and Citibank.
"Through these accounts, we intend to prove the utter greed of President Estrada," said prosecutor Makati Rep. Joker Arroyo.
Ocampo has told the impeachment tribunal that she was just a foot away from the President when he signed a P500-million investment management agreement and a specimen signature card using the name "Jose Velarde."
The prosecutors claimed that one of the Velarde accounts in Equitable-PCI Bank contained about P1.2 billion.
The first sealed envelope on this account ordered opened by Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr., presiding officer in the impeachment tribunal, showed a balance of only P5,000, raising accusations by the prosecution of alleged tampering of the documents.
A second envelope submitted Equitable PCI Bank remained sealed because of vigorous objections by Mr. Estrada’s lawyers. The bank voluntarily submitted the documents even without a subpoena because it reportedly wanted to give full cooperation to the impeachment court in unraveling the truth about the Jose Velarde account.
Presidential friend Jaime Dichaves has filed a manifestation before the tribunal claiming ownership of the Velarde deposits and the P142-million check allegedly used to buy the P86-million "Boracay" mansion in New Manila, Quezon City for presidential mistress, former movie starlet Laarni Enriquez.
Ocampo later claimed there was an attempt to transfer the Velarde account to Dichaves at the office of former Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza, a leading defense lawyer in the impeachment trial.
The defense panel said the second envelope pertained to St. Peter’s Holdings, adding that the prosecution did not mention it at all in the enumeration of corporations allegedly owned or controlled by the President and members of his family.
Aside from the Velarde accounts, the prosecution also secured subpoenas for the production of accounts under the name "Kevin Garcia" with Allied Bank, Bank of Commerce, Equitable PCI Bank, Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, Metrobank, Philippine National Bank, United Overseas Bank and Citibank.
Other documents being sought by the prosecution related to the accounts of presidential mistresses Guia Gomez, Joy Melendrez, Laarni Enriquez, First Lady Dr. Luisa Ejercito and the President himself.
The subpoena for the manager of the Cubao branch of the Bank of Philippine Islands merely referred to account No. 000007-0558-7, and to the branch manager of the Bank of Commerce in Port Area, Manila for account No. 00-0154-31839-9. The prosecution was tight-lipped on what these accounts are all about.
Leyte Rep. Sergio Apostol expressed confidence that the second envelope would be opened.
Ocampo’s testimony was accepted conditionally by Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. The prosecution was required to prove first that Ocampo’s testimony was linked to the charge of betrayal of public trust before it could be accepted as part of the impeachment proceedings.
Enrile said that the prosecutors themselves called for the conditional acceptance of Ocampo’s testimony so they have to establish its connection first to Article 3.
"They are lawyers. They have been trained on the handling of cases. They should be able to connect that testimony with the necessary facts to be admitted. If they cannot do that, they should not blame the Senate – they should blame themselves," Enrile said.
Tatad said that the walkout threat is an attempt to give undue pressure to the impeachment court.
"I find this statement distasteful and completely unfair. Senator-judges are not going to be bullied by anyone. We will decide the issue on its merits and according to the laws," Tatad said.
He noted that the defense panel had never aired any threat to walk out even when the impeachment court was rendering decisions favorable to the prosecution.
Osmeña, meanwhile, said that any walkout by the prosecution would indicate that it has given up its case against the President. He added that should the prosecution insist on walking out, he would even provide them with transport fare.
"But I don’t think a walkout will matter because the House can always replace them," Osmeña said.
Jaworski said prosecutors would be unfair to senator-judges should they walk out. He contended that senator-judges have sworn to render impartial justice and they will be true to that oath.
In a related development, Pampanga Rep. Oscar Rodriguez said that talks of walkout over the Ocampo testimony might have come from private prosecutors and not those from the House.
"We have no control over private prosecutors," he stressed.
Rodriguez said that prosecutors from the House have never made any decision to walk out if Ocampo’s testimony is not admitted.
At the same time, he expressed confidence that they would have no difficulty linking her testimony to the charge on betrayal of public trust.
Meanwhile, Sen. Ramon Revilla clarified yesterday that he did not seek to question the integrity of newsman Emeterio Perez in asking if Perez received money from former chairman Perfecto Yasay of the Securities and Exchange Commission for writing a story about him.
"My question was actually intended to clear the name of Mr. Perez and the media and dispel any possible suspicion that the witness might have received some amount from Mr. Yasay, considering that Mr. Perez wrote the article some four months after the incident," Revilla said. – Efren Danao