One of the documentary exhibits offered by the prosecution to prove its case against impeached Chief Justice Renato Corona, is the evidence purporting to show that the latter received privileges and benefits from Philippine Air Lines (PAL). While these evidence were previously excluded by the Impeachment Court (IC) for being immaterial, the prosecution was allowed to attach them to the records of the case as “tender of excluded evidence” pursuant to Section 40 of the Rules of Court.
But this rule on “tender of excluded evidence” is made only “for purposes of appeal” as held by the Supreme Court on July 14, 2006 in the case of Arevalo vs Layosa which means that the rejection of excluded evidence by a lower court may be raised as an assigned error when appealed to a higher court.
Since the Senate has the “sole power to try and decide cases of impeachment”, its ruling or decision is not subject to any appeal. As a matter of fact, even a motion for reconsideration of the vote to convict or to acquit is not allowed as provided under Section XXI of the Senate Rules on Impeachment.
Clearly, the rule on “tender of excluded evidence” cannot be applied in impeachment cases since the excluded evidence would not have any useful purpose there being no appeal from the decision of the IC. In other words, once an evidence is excluded by the IC, the same can no longer be included.
Since the documentary exhibits pertaining to the alleged PAL benefits were already excluded by the IC, the same cannot be admitted in evidence because it will not serve any useful purpose there being no appeal from a decision of the IC. As further held by the Supreme Court in the Layosa case, “relevancy or materiality is a matter of logic, since it is determined simply by ascertaining its logical connection to a fact in issue in the case.”
In the Corona case, PAL documents were rejected by the IC for being immaterial since it has no logical connection to Article III of the Impeachment Complaint which alleged that Corona allowed the Supreme Court “to act on mere letters filed by a counsel which caused the issuance of flip-flopping decisions.” In other words, there is no allegation in the said article that the issuance of “flip-flopping decisions” was the direct cause of Corona’s alleged receipt of PAL benefits or privileges.