The Sandiganbayan has been asked to reverse an earlier ruling to allow state prosecutors to summon bank executives and open account records related to the P130-million civil forfeiture case of the late Chief Justice Renato Corona.
Corona’s wife, Cristina and children Ma. Carla Beatrice Castillo, Francis and Charina Salgado argued in their motion for reconsideration that they never refused to cooperate when it comes to the submission of bank documents.
The family, through their lawyers, said the ruling of the Sandiganbayan Second Division was unsupportive of Section 5 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule since they never refused to cooperate.
The family explained that it was actually the prosecution who failed to gather documents related to the bank accounts of Corona from their own witnesses.
“It is undisputed that there was no showing of any unjustified refusal on the part of petitioner’s prospective witnesses to execute judicial affidavits or to produce the requested documents,” the motion read.
“Before petitioner requested for the subpoena in this case, it never asked its prospective witnesses to produce the requested documents and execute their respective judicial affidavits,” it added.
The Sandiganbayan, in a seven-page resolution last month, decided to set aside its ruling dated April 28, 2016 upon granting the motion for clarification and/or reconsideration of the prosecution.
In the April resolution, the Sandiganbayan quashed the subpoenas of the prosecution issued to Enrico Cruz and Celia Orbeta of Deutsche Bank AG Manila.
The bank executives were asked to authenticate copies of a letter dated June 2012 from the bank to then-Bureau of Internal Revenue chief Kim Henares pertaining to Corona’s dollar deposits supposedly amounting to $167,000 from 2002 to 2011.
The Sandiganbayan also ruled to exclude the evidence produced from the subpoena addressed to Cruz and Orbeta, as well as to Anthony Chua of Allied Banking Corp., Francisco Burgos Jr. and Maybelen Villareal of Land Bank of the Philippines, and Pascual Garcia III of PS Bank.
The prosecution has contended that the case of Corona is covered by the Judicial Affidavit Rule which states that a requesting party is allowed to issue a subpoena of relevant documents if the accused fails to produce them in court.
The Corona family, however, said the prosecution’s arguments were “anchored merely on its baseless and erroneous assumption” that they will only submit judicial affidavits and bank documents once the Sandiganbayan rules in their favor.
“Petitioner should have exerted its best effort to coordinate with its prospective witnesses for the latter’s execution of judicial affidavits and production of documents before it invoked this honorable court’s authority to issue subpoena. Petitioner’s failure to do so renders its requests for subpoena premature,” the motion read.
They said the Sandiganbayan should reverse its ruling because the prosecution misused court processes when it resorted to a “procedural shortcut” that supposedly violates their right to a speedy disposition of justice.
“Respondents respectfully submit that it is not the duty of this honorable court to rescue petitioner from a serious mistake caused by its own failure to rely on the resources available to it and comply with the Judicial Affidavit Rule,” it added.
The then 67-year old Corona succumbed to cardiac arrest at The Medical City in Pasig City on April 29, 2016 after years of battling diabetes.
His case was an offshoot of an impeachment trial against him over his alleged misdeclarations in his Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth.
In 2012, the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, convicted Corona for betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution over non-declaration of several assets, including real estate properties in his SALNs, causing his removal from the Supreme Court.
