defense's reiterative motion to quash subpoena of psbank documents

8/3/2019 Defense's Reiterative Motion to Quash Subpoena of PSBank Documents

1/7

3lttpnblit of tbe llbHtpptnesq c o n g r e ~ ~ of tbe ~ b i l t p p i n e ~

~ e n a t e .'. IT:J 15 1\11 :09

SITTING AS THE IMPEACHMENT COURT

IN THE MATTER OF THEIMPEACHMENT OFRENATO C. CORONA ASCHIEF JUSTICE OF THESUPREME COURT OF THEPHILIPPINES.REPRESENTATIVES NIELC. TUPAS, JR., JOSEPHEMILIO A. ABAYA,LORENZO R. TAN-ADA III,REYNALDO V. UMALI,ARLENEJ. BAG-AO, et al.

Case No. 002-2011

It---------------------------------------------------------------------------------It

REITERATIVE MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Chief Justice Renato C. Corona ("CJ Corona"), by counsel, respectfullystates:

1. On 13 February 2012, this Honorable Impeachment Court issued a

Subpoena Ad Testificandum et Duces Tecum of even date to Ms. Anabelle Tiongson,Branch Manager, Philippine Savings Bank (pS Bank), Katipunan Branch (the"Subpoena"), ordering her to testify and to produce the following

Motion toQuash SubpoenaePage 1 '!I7


2/7

5. The above Subpoena is an arbitrary expansIOn and a blatantcircumvention of this Honorable Impeachment Court's own Resolution and thestrict parameters enunciated therein.

6. Clearly, the Subpoena, which compels the production of any and alldocuments or accounts in the name of Renato C. Corona in PS Bank from theperiod 31 December 2002 to 31 December 2011, constitutes a "grandinquisitorial examination" in this case which should not be allowed.

7. The attempt to resort to the compulsory process of subpoena tointroduce these documents and related testimony in an attempt to possiblyuncover more definite leads to evidence is a fishing expedition for evidence thatis obviously irrelevant and immaterial.

8. Further, the Subpoena did not specify the specific accounts to beproduced. Its issuance is unreasonable and oppressive, and thus, should bequashed outright, as provided under Section 4, Rule 21 of the Rules of Court,Vti':

Sec. 4. Quashing a Subpoena--the Court may quash a subpoena ducestecum upon motion promptly made and, in any events at or before the timespecified therein if it is unreasonable and oppressive, or th e relevancy ofth e books, documents or things does no t appear, or if the person in whosebehalf the subpoena is issued fails to advance the reasonable cost of theproduction thereof. (Emphasis supplied)

* * *

Motion toQuash SubpoenaePage 3 q/7


3/7

9. Moreover, Rule 128, Section 3 of the Rules of Court states that"(e)vidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded bythe law or these rules." Conversely, the Rule advises us that irrelevant evidence isnot admissible.

10. I t is therefore obvious that the testimony of the persons named inthe Subpoena and the documents supposedly identified therein are clearlyintended to prove paragraph 2.4 of the Impeachment Complaint, which states:

2.4. Respondent is likewise suspected and accused of havingaccumulated ill-gotten wealth, acquiring assets of high values and keeping bankaccounts with huge deposits. I t has been reported that Respondent has, amongothers, a 300-sq. meter apartment in a posh Mega World Propertydevelopment at the Fort in Taguig. Has he reported this, as he isconstitutionally required under Art. XI, Sec. 17 of the Constitution in hisStatement of Assets and Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN)? Is this acquisitionsustained and duly supported by his income as a public official? Since hisassumption as Associate and subsequently, Chief Justice, has he complied withhis duty of public disclosure? (Emphasis supplied)

11. However, any introduction of evidence pertaining to paragraph 2.4of the Impeachment Complaint, which includes evidence to prove CJ Corona'ssupposed bank accounts with huge deposits," has been disallowed by thisHonorable Court since it violates CJ Corona's fundamental constitutional rightto due process. As this Honorable Court ruled:

The introduction of evidence in Paragraph 2.4 will, likewise,violate the right of the respondent Chief Justice to due process,specifically his right to be informed of the nature and cause of theaccusation agaiust him. Article III, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitutionmandates that no person shall be held liable for a crimiual offensewithout due process of law. It further provides that in all crimiualprosecutions, the accused shall be iuformed of the nature and cause ofaccusation agaiust him. Similarly, the Revised Rules of CrimiualProcedure, as amended, which took effect on December 1, 2000,provides that iu all criminal prosecutions, it is the right of the accused to

Motion toQuash SubpoenaePage 4 0/7


4/7

be infonned of the narure and cause of the accusation against him. Toconvict an accused for an offense not alleged in the complaint orinformation violates such right. . . .On this score alone, the Subpoena must perforce be quashed.

12. CJ Corona reiterates that paragraph 2.4 is merely based on"reports" and "suspicion", contrary to the joint verification of the Complainantsthat the "the allegations therein (the Complaint) are true of our ownknowledge." The "reports" and "suspicions" are also contrary to therequirements of the Rules of Court, which have suppletory application, thatallegations in the complaint must be of "ultimate facts." (Sec. 3, Rule 3).

13. It is therefore clear that paragraph 2.4 of the ImpeachmentComplaint relating to CJ Corona's supposed "ill-gotten wealth, assets of highvalues and bank accounts with huge deposits" was correctly deemed unwrittenby this Honorable Court in the impeachment complaint. As such, any evidencerelating thereto is inadmissible and irrelevant.

14. As always emphasized by CJ Corona, Article II of theImpeachment Complaint, merely charges CJ Corona with the following:

RESPONDENT COMMITTED CULPABLEVIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND/ORBETRAYED THE PUBUC TRUST WHEN HEFAILED TO DISCLOSE TO THE PUBUC HISSTATEMENT OF ASSETS, UABILITIES AND NETWORTH AS REQUIRED UNDER SEC. 17, ART. XI OFTHE 1987 CONSTITUTION.

1 Resolution dated 27 January 2012, p. 3.Motion toQuash Suhpoenae

Page 5 0[7


5/7

[O]riginal and certified true copies of the account openingforms/documents, bank statements showing the balances of the accounts as ofDecember 31, 2002, December 31, 2003, December 31, 2004, December 31,2005, December 31, 2006, December 31, 2007, December 31, 2008, December31, 2009, December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2011, for any and all pesoSavings Accounts, Current Accounts, Time Deposits, Certificates of Deposit,Settlement Accounts, Investment Management and Trust Accounts, UnitInvestment Trust Funds, Mutual Funds, and any and all financial instrumentsoffered by the Philippine Savings Bank, Katipunan Branch, in the name ofChief Justice RENATO C. CORONA.

2. On 14 February 2012, CJ Corona ftled a "Motion to QuashSubpoenae" of even date (the "Motion to Quash"), praying for the quashal ofsaid Subpoena and a similar subpoena issued to the Bank Manager of Bank ofthe Philippine Islands (''BPI''), Ayala Avenue Branch. However, the HonorableImpeachment Court allowed the testimony and the presentation of documentsby the Branch Manager of BPI, Ayala Avenue Branch, without ruling on CJCorona's Motion to Quash. Ms. Tiongson is expected to appear again on 15February 2012 pursuant to said Subpoena.

3. At the risk of being repetitive, CJ Corona respectfully reiterates hisearlier motion to quash the Subpoena for being unreasonable, oppressive andirrelevant.

4. In its Resolution dated 6 February 2012 (the "Resolution"), thisHonorable Impeachment Court categorically stated that:

In the determining whether the production of the documentsdescribed in a subpoena duces tecum should be enforced by the Court, it isproper to consider first, whether the subpoena calls for the production ofspecific proof, and secondly, whether the proof is prima facie sufficientlyrelevant to justify enforcing its production. A general inquisitorialexamination of all books, papers, and documents of an adversary, conductedwith a view to ascertain whether something of value may show up, will no t beenforced. (Emphasis supplied)

Motion toQuash SubpoenaePage 2 ofl


6/7

15. Under Article II of the Grounds for Impeachment, CJ Corona isbeing accused of a single culpable act - his alleged failure to disclose to thepublic his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth ("SALN"), nothingmore. Article II does not charge him with accumulating ill-gotten wealth and/orgraft and corruption.

16. In this case, the testimony of the Ms. Anabelle Tiongson, BranchManager, PSBank, Katipunan Branch, on the purported bank documents from2002 to 2011, as well as the presentation thereof, are clearly irrelevant andimmaterial to the issue of whether or not CJ Corona failed to his disclose hisSALN to the public. The presentation of the requested bank documents andtestimony of the matters subject of the Subpoena are therefore improper.

17. From the foregoing, it is clear that the Subpoena are nothing morebut a brazen attempt to' introduce irrelevant and immaterial evidence in theseproceedings, in violation of CJ Corona's right to due process.

PRAYERWHEREFORE, in consideration of the provisions of law, jurisprudence

and arguments adduced, it is respectfully prayed that this HonorableImpeachment Court QUASH the Subpoena dated 13 February 2012.

CJ Corona prays for other reliefs, just or equitable under thecircumstances.

Makati for Pasay City, 15 February 2012.Motion toQuash Subpoenae

Page 6 0/7


7/7

Respectfully Submitted byCounsel for C . . enato C. Corona.

JOSEM.PTR No. 0038311; 1 9/12; Makati CityIBP LRN 02570 August 20, 2001 (Lifetime)Roll of Attorneys No. 37065MCLE Exemption No. 1-000176

DENNIS P. MANALOPTR No. 3175833; 2 January 2012, Makati CityIBP No. 870170; 2 January 2012, Makati CityRoll No. 40950, 12 April 1996MCLE Compliance No. III-0009471, 26 April 2010

Copies furnished: HOUSE ?ROS'ECUnON PANEl.

House of RepresentativesBatasan ComplexBatasan Hills, Quezon City

Senators of the Republic of the PhilippinesGSIS BuildingMacapagal HighwayPasay City

Motion toQuash 5ubpoenaePage 70/7