Prosecutors accuse Corona of interference
State prosecutors have accused former Chief Justice Renato Corona of interfering in the forfeiture case against him by blocking the subpoena for his bank records and officials of banks where he had accounts.
Because of this, state lawyers asked the Sandiganbayan Second Division to deny Corona’s omnibus motion that sought the quashal of the subpoena duces tecum et ad testificandum (documents and witnesses) for four banks.
Citing Supreme Court rulings, state lawyers indicated that they have “the prerogative to choose the evidence or the witnesses it wishes to present” and has “the discretion as to how it should present its case.”
“Part of the prerogative is the liberty to determine which witnesses will be summoned, how their testimonies will be presented in court, which evidence will be offered, and in what sequence. The adverse party has no right to interfere with such prerogative,” read the prosecution’s opposition to Corona’s motion.
On the claims of Corona that the evidence were illegally obtained, the prosecution said that “provenance and chain of custody of the said bank records can be fully established duing trial, with help of material witnesses and with the benefit of respondents’ crossexamination and this Honorable Court.”
“Clearly, therefore, the bank records in the possession of petitioner were neither priveleged nor illegally obtained,” assured the prosecution who cited that Corona has issued a waiver that allowed the scrutiny of his bank records.
State counsels emphasized that during the Ombudsman’s preliminary investigation and during the proceedings before the Second Division “respondents have consis- tently fought tooth and nail to keep said bank records away from public scrutiny imply because they contain immutable truths that they cannot explain.”
“The instant Motion is just the latest in a long list of respondents’ evasive maneuvers, which this Honorable Court should no lonnger countenance,” stressed the prosecution.
Prosecutors reminded the court that “the supoenae requested for by the petitioner was merely for the purpose of directing bank officials to confer with undersigned prosecutors.”
They added that “the bank records attached to the subpoenae, which have all been introduced into evidence during the preliminary inquiry before the Office of the Ombudsman were to be used by the concerned bank officials as references, in order for them to be appraised of the case in which they are being asked to testify, for them to determine who among their officers have a direct hand on the transactions described therein, and for them to secure their own authentic or certified true copies thereof for comparison.”
Under the Judicial Affidavit Rule, the prosecution pointed out that “objections to testimony in judicial affidavits are to be raised by the adverse party after the testimony of the witness has been offered.”
At this point, state lawyers admitted that they do not know how the conferences with the bank officials will go.