Fraud, tax experts to face off in impeachment trial

MANILA, Philippines - As the impeachment trial enters its third week today, the prosecution will present a certified fraud examiner (CFE) in its list of witnesses to bolster further their allegations in Article 2 of the Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Renato Corona.

The defense would also present an expert witness in a bid to weaken the prosecution’s case against the chief magistrate in Article 2 on Corona’s alleged non-disclosure of assets and failure to include properties.

Marikina Rep. Miro Quimbo, a spokesman for the prosecution, said the CFE will render expert opinion on the true or correct net worth of Corona and his incapacity to acquire the properties registered under his name and that of his wife and children based on his declared income.

Quimbo, however, refused to elaborate further on the CFE’s testimony so as not to preempt the strategy of the prosecution panel.

He said the House prosecution is ready to wind up its offer of documents and witnesses on Article 2 of the impeachment complaint.

“We hope to wrap up Article 2 this Wednesday or Thursday so we can go to Article 1,” Quimbo said.

Under Article 1 of the impeachment complaint, Corona is accused of betrayal of public trust due to his “partiality and subservience in cases involving the Arroyo administration from the time of his appointment as Supreme Court justice until his dubious appointment as midnight chief justice to the present.”

Apart from Internal Revenue Commissioner Kim Henares, the prosecution has lined up this week the representatives from the National Statistics Office; director of the corporate registration and monitoring department of the Securities and Exchange Commission; Housing officials, and representatives of real property developers where the Corona couple bought their alleged properties.

The prosecution mentioned about the CFE in their list submitted to the Senate body last Friday.

“This list presumes that the defense will not be willing to stipulate on the documents subject matter of the witnesses’ testimonies,” the prosecution said in their compliance memorandum.

The defense, on the other hand, said they would present an expert witness in a bid to weaken the prosecution’s case dealing on Corona’s alleged non-disclosure of assets and failure to include properties.

Former justice undersecretary Ramon Esguerra said the defense is also lining up experts from the Bureau Internal Revenue (BIR) and possibly from a tax auditing firm to “walk the Senate through the statements of assets, liabilities, and networth (SALNs) and financial capacities” of Corona.

“(The witness has knowledge) in auditing, taxation, all told in one to amplify, qualify (their defense in Article 2),” Esguerra said.

Apart from the tax/auditing expert, Esguerra said the resident auditor and finance management officer of the Supreme Court would be recalled to the witness stand in relation to Article 8 on the issue of the use of judiciary funds.

The defense is submitting today their own list of witnesses and documentary evidence to match the prosecution’s. Esguerra said about 15 witnesses will be presented by the defense.

Moving to Article 3

The House prosecution led by Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr., said they would also prove Corona and his wife Cristina accepted special privileges from the management of the Philippine Airlines (PAL) while cases involving the country’s flag carrier are still pending with the Supreme Court (SC).

Tupas said they would present witnesses and documentary evidence, particularly the travel records of the Corona couple, to prove one of their allegations in Article 3 of the impeachment case.

Article 2 of the impeachment complaint accuses Corona of culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust for his “failure to meet and observe the stringent standards of the Constitution that a member of the judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence in allowing the Supreme Court to act on mere letters filed by a counsel which caused the issuance of flip-flopping decisions in final and executory cases,” among others.

House prosecutors cited a recent resolution of the Supreme Court recalling its earlier final decision on the illegal retrenchment case filed by the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) against PAL by acting on a mere letter from the air carrier’s lawyer Estelito Mendoza.

The prosecution said they would present five witnesses in connection with the PAL case, which include representatives from the Bureau of Immigration (BI), PAL, Supreme Court, Prestige Travel Agency, and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

The House prosecutors issued a statement saying the BI representative will produce and testify on the travel records of the Corona couple.

The PAL representative, they said, will testify on the travel dates of the Coronas via PAL and the corresponding seats occupied.

They will also call to the witness stand an employee of the Supreme Court who handles the official travels of the magistrates to testify on the chief justice’s trips via PAL and the type of airline tickets he purchased.

Prosecutors noted that the Supreme Court often tapped the services of Prestige Travel Agency, which according to SEC records, is owned by the family of PAL legal counsel Mendoza.

Among the witnesses that the prosecution lined up for Article 3 are lawyer Gorgonio Elarmo Jr., Michelle Mangubat, and Corazon Ferrer-Flores.

Elarmo will identify and authenticate the original and certified true copy of the Authorization Letter dated Nov. 23, 2010 authorizing Mangubat to hold a cash advance in the amount of P100,000 to be used to purchase Christmas gifts of the Chief Justice and all other requests, authorizations, approvals and such other documents pertaining to cash advances given to Corona.

Mangubat, as Special Disbursing Officer and/or the SC Resident COA Auditor, will testify on the official receipts/disbursement vouchers of meals, gifts, personal expenses of Corona charged to the Supreme Court.

Flores will identify and authenticate the memorandum regarding gasoline allowances of the Chief Justice.

The prosecution panel would also present as witness the authorized officer of EDSA Shangri-La Plaza that will identify and authenticate the receipts on the purchase purported authorized by Corona regarding several wedding gifts.

The owner/manager or the authorized representative of Design Exchange Inc. will authenticate the sales invoices of the purchase made by Mrs. Corona amounting to P20,400 and P25,000 on June 10, 2010 and June 29, 2010, respectively.

The Corporate Secretary or Assistant Corporate Secretary of John Hay Management Corp. will provide a short corporate background of JHMC and the election of Mrs. Corona as president and chair of JHMC.

He or she is expected to produce the subpoenaed documents such as the Minutes of the Board Meeting held on April 3, 2007 during which Mrs. Corona was elected chair and president, and the letters of then Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita to BCDA chair Aloysius Santos with the desire letters from then President Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo.

Lyssa GS Pagano Calde, former vice president and COO of JHMC will testify to prove the alleged abuses of Mrs. Corona and her dismal performance at JHMC.

Retired Court of Appeals justice Teodoro Regino will testify to prove that the Board of Directors withdrew the election of Mrs. Corona as chairman and president and declared the positions vacant due to irregularities/anomalies committed by her. He will further testify and prove that Arroyo had ordered all members of the Board to submit instead their resignations and he will testify regarding his letter of resignation dated June 20, 2007.

Commission on Audit (COA) Director Ma. Cristina Dizon-Dimagiba will testify to show the questionable/irregular expenditures incurred by Mrs. Corona for the year ending 2007 and to prove that she was “untouchable.”

COA Director Rosemarie Lacson-Lerio will testify to show the questionable/irregular expenditures incurred by Mrs. Corona continued for the years 2008 and 2009 proving further that the wife of the chief magistrate was truly untouchable.

COA supervising auditor Arlyn Encarnacion will testify to show that, after Mrs. Corona resigned on July 10, 2012, and a new President took over, the questionable/irregular expenditures heretofore committed by Mrs. Corona had stopped.

The secretary of Judicial Bar and Council will testify to prove that during the interview of Corona by the JBC on April 21, 2010, relative to his application for Chief Justice, Mrs. Corona’s employment was questioned. He/she will also testify on the other objections submitted against the nomination/appointment of respondent as Associate Justice and Chief Justice.

Frank Daytec who filed a criminal case against Mrs. Corona will testify to prove that she was complicit in the misuse of funds of the JHMC.

Lauro Vizconde will testify to prove Corona met him with anti-crime crusader Dante Jimenez sometime in September 2010. It was during that meeting that Corona supposedly divulged some information regarding his pending case against the accused in the killing of his family.

Jimenez, on the other hand, will corroborate Vizconde’s allegations that Corona met them sometime in September 2010.

Professor Rosario Maria Juan-Bautista will testify on what are the nature, scope and rationale behind the constitutional provision, code of judicial conduct, and code of judicial ethics, which mandate that justices and judges of courts must be of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence.

She will also testify on what are considered violations of the Constitution, code of judicial conduct, and code of judicial ethics.

Roberto Anduiza, president of the Flight Attendants’ and Stewards’ Association of the Philippines (FASAP) will testify on the status of their case, and the two SC decisions that were in their favor. He will also testify on the circumstances concerning the recall of the SC decision.

SC administrator and spokesman Jose Midas Marquez will testify regarding his statements before the media on the recall of the FASAP decision as well as the source/s of his information on the reasons for the recall of the ruling.

Enriquetta Esguerra-Vidal, SC Clerk of Court, will testify on the circumstances of the transfer of the FASAP case from one division to another. Vidal will also identify the Memorandum dated Sept. 26, 2011, prepared by her office, through deputy Clerk of Court Felipa Anama, explaining the transfer of the case from one division to another.

Anama, on the other hand, would corroborate Vidal’s testimony.

The magistrates present on Oct. 4, 2011 during the SC session that decided to recall the FASAP ruling, will testify on the circumstances of the transfer of the FASAP case from one division to another.

Another front

The 188 lawmakers who signed the Articles of Impeachment against Corona yesterday vowed to continue their fight and file another impeachment complaint in the event the chief magistrate is acquitted on a technicality.

The members of the so-called “Movement 188” also bared plans to mobilize their constituents to campaign for the relaxation of the rules of the Senate impeachment court and allow prosecutors “flexibility” and presenting evidence and witnesses.

They said “nothing would prevent legislators or ordinary taxpayers from initiating another impeachment case against Corona at the end of the one-year ban.”

Under the Constitution, only one impeachment proceeding can be initiated each year against impeachable public officials like the chief justice.

“The first order of business of Movement 188 in its nationwide information campaign is to explain to the public the need for flexibility in Senate court rules to enable the prosecution to present evidence on the Chief Justice’s crimes-as spelled out in the eight Articles of Impeachment-that warrant his immediate eviction from the Supreme Court,” the group said in a statement.

The lawmakers noted the concern made by Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano during the trial that because the principle of “double jeopardy” does not apply in an impeachment trial, a second impeachment case can be filed against Corona a year from now, even on the same charges enumerated in the eight Articles of Impeachment.

This is in case Corona is acquitted on a mere technicality because vital evidence was not admitted in the Senate court, they said.

The group also said the prosecution panel was only taking its cue from no other than Corona, who wrote the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision on the state’s seizure of the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses stashed in Swiss banks.

“Corona’s hotshot lawyers have been hiding behind the veil of due process and the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the specific charges against him-via the strict enforcement of court rules on evidence,” it said, “in a desperate bid to hold back the presentation of evidence pinning down the Chief Justice on the prosecution’s charges of ill-gotten wealth and other crimes that make him unfit to remain at the helm of the Supreme Court.” -With Paolo Romero