Prosecution's Compliance Explanation Re: "Fake" or "Forged" Documents
-
Upload
vera-files -
Category
Documents
-
view
225 -
download
0
Transcript of Prosecution's Compliance Explanation Re: "Fake" or "Forged" Documents
8/3/2019 Prosecution's Compliance Explanation Re: "Fake" or "Forged" Documents
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prosecutions-compliance-explanation-re-fake-or-forged-documents 1/13
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES
SENATE
SITTING AS THE IMPEACHMENT COURT
IN THE MATTER OF THE
IMPEACHMENT OF RENATO C.
CORONA AS CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
REPRESENTATIVES NIH C. TUPAS,
JR., JOSEPH EMILIO A. ABAYA,
LORENZO R. TANADA, III,
REYNALDO V. UMALI, ARLENE J.
BAG-AO, et al.,
Complainants.
'17 FEB14 P7:11
CASE NO. 002-2011
x -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
COMPLIANCE
(Re: Annexes A to A-4 of the
Supplemental Request fo r Subpoenae/ReplyDated 3 February 2012)
The HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, through its PROSECUTORS, respectfully
states:
1. At the 13 February 2012 hearing, the prosecution was ordered by the
Honorable Presiding Officer to submit an explanation within twenty-four (24)
hours regarding Annexes A to A-4 of the prosecution's Supplemental Request for
Subpoenae/Reply dated 3 February 2012, in light of the statements made by
8/3/2019 Prosecution's Compliance Explanation Re: "Fake" or "Forged" Documents
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prosecutions-compliance-explanation-re-fake-or-forged-documents 2/13
2
witness Annabelle Tiongson (PSBank Branch Manager) that said documents
appear to be "fake" or "forged."
2. First off, after the order to explain had been given, Ms. Tiongson
clarified that she cannot confirm or deny the existence/authenticity of Annexes A
to A-4 because these documents have information on dollar accounts which are
covered by the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued by the Supreme Court.1
Similarly, during the questioning of Ms. Tiongson by the Honorable Senator-Judge
Francis Escudero, her legal counsel said that Ms. Tiongson cannot confirm or deny
whether Annexes A to A-4 are the "exact replica" of PSBank documents, because
of her belief that it would be akin to disclosing information on the dollar accounts
therein.2
3. Thus, as things now stand, it is far from clear whether Ms. Tiongson
actually meant to say that Annexes A to A-4 are "fake" or "forged" documents. It
now appears that she merely refuses to confirm or deny the authenticity of the
documents because of her belief that to do so would lead to the disclosure of
information on dollar accounts.
4. In fact, when PS Bank President Pascual Garcia testified last February
9, 2012, he never declared that Annexes A to A-4 were outright false documents
or not documents of the bank, but merely mentioned that there were
"discrepancies" or "differences" when compared to the originals (which have not
yet been brought to court).
1 These are based on the notes taken during the 13 February 2012 hearing, considering that the transcript/record
of said hearing is not yet available to the undersigned as of the time of the writing of this Compliance.
'Id.
8/3/2019 Prosecution's Compliance Explanation Re: "Fake" or "Forged" Documents
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prosecutions-compliance-explanation-re-fake-or-forged-documents 3/13
3
5. Indeed, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to verify the
authenticity of Annexes A to A-4 unless PSBank will be ordered to produce for
inspection all the opening documents (including Customer Identification and
Specimen Signature Cards) fo r all of the respondent's accounts (peso and dollar)
with PSBank. Only then will the Honorable Impeachment Court be able to
determine whether Annexes A to A-4 correspond to the documents on record
with PSBank. Only then will the Honorable Impeachment Court be able to make a
comparison by which to determine if Annexes A to A-4 are photocopies or
reproductions of originals existing in the records of PS Bank. Fittingly, the
Honorable Senate President already ordered Ms. Tiongson last February 13, 2012
to bring the originals of Annexes A to A-4 or documents of similar nature in the
possession of the bank for the examination of this Court fo r the purpose of
comparing them with the attachments to the Supplemental Request.
6. It must be noted that ten (10) accounts identified in Annexes A to A-4
were confirmed to be existing by no less than PSBank President Pascual Garcia.
Even the defense effectively admitted the existence of the dollar accounts by
undertaking to open them "in due time." This confirmation tends to show that
Annexes A to A-4 are seemingly and reasonably authentic, with all due respect to
this Honorable Impeachment Court and the Defense Panel, we submit that to
resolve this issue once and fo r all and in order to arrive at the truth, the "due
time" to present the document at issue is now.
7. The Honorable Impeachment Court cannot just rely on statements by
PSBank officers about the authenticity of the Annexes A to A-4, without actual
8/3/2019 Prosecution's Compliance Explanation Re: "Fake" or "Forged" Documents
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prosecutions-compliance-explanation-re-fake-or-forged-documents 4/13
4
documents to back up those statements. PSBank officers have a natural motive
to deny the authenticity of Annexes A to A-4, because they would want to avoid
potential liability fo r the possible leakage of their bank records. There has to be
an actual production of the original records of PSBank pertaining to all the peso
and dollar accounts of respondent (with proof that the integrity of such records
has been maintained), so that a proper comparison and verification can be made.
8. At any rate, the undersigned submitted Annexes A to A-4 in good
faith. The documents were provided by an anonymous source to the prosecution,
and the prosecution felt that it was its duty to submit said documents to the
Honorable Impeachment Court fo r consideration in relation to the (then) pending
request for subpoenae to PSBank. At that time, it appears that the documents or
information about them have already been circulating in the media. With candor,
the prosecution even stated that it could not vouch for the authenticity of said
documents. As stated in the prosecution's Supplemental Request for
Subpoenae/Reply:
"10. Recently, an anonymous source provided theprosecution with photocopies of what appears to be PSBank
documents. These documents (copies attached as Annexes A to A-4)
contain the following details:
xxx xxx xxx
"11. Moreover, it seems that the media itself also has
information, if not documents, pertaining to these PSBank accounts.
See, for instance, the newspaper articles of Mr. Jake Macasaet inAbante (Annex B) and of Mr. Conrado R. Banal III in the Philippine
Daily Inquirer (Annex C).
"12. While it cannot vouch for the authenticity of the said
documents, the prosecution believes that it is its duty to submit the
8/3/2019 Prosecution's Compliance Explanation Re: "Fake" or "Forged" Documents
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prosecutions-compliance-explanation-re-fake-or-forged-documents 5/13
5
documents to this Honorable Impeachment Court, as they may have
a bearing on the Court's resolution of the pending request for
subpoena. The Honorable Presiding Senator-Judge stated during the
hearing yesterday, 2 February 2012, that the prosecution should
specify the bank accounts sought to be subpoenaed. The documentssubmitted herewith indicate specific accounts which appear to be in
the name of respondent."
9. Despite full disclosure of all the circumstances surrounding the
documents (including the fact that the documents came from an anonymous
source and the Prosecution declaring at the outset that it could not vouch for
their authenticity), the Honorable Impeachment Court, knowing full well these
circumstances, issued the subpoena after having discussed the matter at length in
a caucus. This indicates that the legality of the basis of the subpoena was
discussed and weighed by the Honorable Court itself and all of its Senator-Judges,
and it was determined that there was no violation of any law or any rule of
procedure in both the request and issuance of the subpoena. Notably, and to
reiterate, ten (10) bank accounts indicated in Annexes A to A-4 have been
confirmed to be existing by the PSBank President Pascual Garcia. This indicates
that the documents, or at least the information contained therein, were not
baseless, and it cannot be denied that they have heretofore assisted in
uncovering the truth.
10. As to the possibility of violation of the confidentiality of bank
depOSits, the Honorable Impeachment Court has ruled (Resolution dated 6
February 2012) that such confidentiality does not apply to the instant
impeachment proceedings and has granted the prosecution's request for issuance
of subpoenae. According to the Resolution dated 6 February 2012, "the majority
8/3/2019 Prosecution's Compliance Explanation Re: "Fake" or "Forged" Documents
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prosecutions-compliance-explanation-re-fake-or-forged-documents 6/13
6
is of the view that the present impeachment proceedings present a valid
exception to the general rule on confidentiality of information on bank accounts
evenfor
foreign currency bank accounts" (page 5). This ruling hasnot
been
reversed or modified. Even though the Honorable Impeachment Court ruled
yesterday to abide by the TRO issued by the Supreme Court (insofar as the dollar
accounts are concerned), the Honorable Impeachment Court did not reverse or
modify its Resolution dated 6 February 2012, and even said it will vigorously
defend such ruling in the Supreme Court proceedings. Moreover, if the
documents are later on found not to be authentic bank records, then there can be
no liability for violation of confidentiality, because no official bank record could
then be said to have been disclosed.
11. Under the law, bank accounts may be inquired into in impeachment
proceedings (as confirmed and sustained in this Honorable Impeachment Court's
6 February 2012 Resolution). But to inquire into respondent's bank accounts, the
prosecution was directed during the February 2, 2012 hearing to specify the said
bank accounts. Faced with this predicament, the prosecution felt the need to
submit the subject documents (Annexes A to A-4) because they contain
information about the specific bank accounts of respondent. The information was
later on confirmed, when PSBank President Pascual Garcia admitted the existence
of the said bank accounts. Even the defense effectively admitted the existence of
the bank accounts with their undertaking to open them "in due time."
12. In any event, even assuming fo r the sake of argument that there was
a possible violation of the confidentiality of bank accounts, it would not warrant
8/3/2019 Prosecution's Compliance Explanation Re: "Fake" or "Forged" Documents
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prosecutions-compliance-explanation-re-fake-or-forged-documents 7/13
7
the exclusion or non-admission of evidence in relation to the bank accounts.
Neither R.A. 1405 nor RA 6426 provides fo r any exclusionary rule. In the case of
Ejercitov.
Sandiganbayan (G.R. Nos. 157294-95, November 30, 2006), the
Supreme Court rejected the contention of the petitioner therein "that the
information about his bank accounts were acquired illegally, hence, it may not be
lawfully used to facilitate a subsequent inquiry into the same bank accounts."
Said the Supreme Court:
"Petitioner's attempt to make the exclusionary rule applicable
to the instant case fails. R.A. 1405. it bears noting. nowhere
provides that an unlawful examination of bank accounts shall
render the evidence obtained therefrom inadmissible in evidence.
Section 5 of R.A. 1405 only states that '[a]ny violation of this law will
subject the offender upon conviction, to an imprisonment of not
more than five years or a fine of not more than twenty thousand
pesos or both, in the discretion of the court:
xxx xxx xxx
The same principle was reiterated in U.S. v. Thompson:
. . . When Congress specifically designates a
remedy for one of its acts, courts generally presume that
it engaged in the necessary balancing of interests in
determining what the appropriate penalty should be.See Michaelian, 803 F.2d at 1049 (citing cases); Frazin,
780 F.2d at 1466. Absent a specific reference to an
exclusionary rule, it is not appropriate for the courts to
read such a provision into the act." [Emphasis and
underscoring supplied]
13. Besides, the Honorable Presiding Officer has already explained that
questions of admissibility are premature at this point because the prosecution has
not yet made a formal offer of documentary evidence. As stated in pages 35 to
8/3/2019 Prosecution's Compliance Explanation Re: "Fake" or "Forged" Documents
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prosecutions-compliance-explanation-re-fake-or-forged-documents 8/13
8
36 of the February 6, 2012 Record of the Senate Sitting As An Impeachment Court
liThe Presiding Officer. We leave it at that.
"I would like to explain that the Resolution of this Court was
simply to authorize the issuance of a subpoena, and whether those
evidence subpoenaed are admissible evidence given the fact that
they apparently appeared in vio lation of existing laws is a question
that must be resolved in due course. I hope that is understood. We
are not prejudging the admissibility or non-admissibility of this
evidence. And this issue will come up at that point when thesubpoenaed material and testimonies are offered in evidence. And
all of these incidental issues will be opened for scrutiny at the proper
time.
"Your know, Republic Act 6426 is a very strict law, far stricter
that Republic Act 1405. It imposes a penalty for its violation and
nobody is immune from that penalty whether you are a member of
the Court, whether you are a member of the Legislature, whether
you are a member of the Executive Department, whether you arepublic or private person. That is the mandate of Section 10 of
Republic Act 6426. Whether the appearance of this document in
violation of Republic Act 6426 will impair its admissibility as an
evidence is something that - to be resolved at a later date. This Court
cannot at the moment resolve that issue." [Emphasis supplied]
14. As to the provenance of the subject documents, it has been
explained by undersigned prosecutor Rep. Niel Tupas, Jr. that they were given to
him by prosecutor Rep. Reynaldo Umali on February 2, 2012 (Thursday). Rep.
Umali also explained the circumstances by which he received the documents from
an anonymous source. Notably, Rep. Umali admitted that he could not distinctly
recall exactly who gave him the documents, or when the documents were given
to him, or where the documents were given to him. As reflected in pages 34 to 36
of the February 6, 2012 Record of the Senate Sitting As An Impeachment Court -
8/3/2019 Prosecution's Compliance Explanation Re: "Fake" or "Forged" Documents
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prosecutions-compliance-explanation-re-fake-or-forged-documents 9/13
9
"Senator Escudero. Sir, may we ask the circumstances as to
how this was obtained? Sino po'yung Prosecutor na nagbigay sa iyo?
At alangan namang multo - 0 iniwan ho ba sa opisina niya yung
dokumento? Mineyl (mail) baso
kanya?
"Because I fear, Mr. President, Your Honor, that we might be
violating indirectly the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Law with the
possession of these types of document, that the Impeachment Court
issued the subpoena only in relation to that today.
"Representative Tupas. It was given to me Thursday night
around 7:30 in the evening in one of the hotels along Roxas
Boulevard. And the Prosecutor is here inside the Session Hall. So, oneof the Prosecutors, Congressman Reynaldo Umali.
"Senator Escudero. And was given by who to him?
"Representative Tupas. We can ask him, Your Honor, if you
wish.
"Senator Escudero. May we request-
"Representative Tupas. May I give the floor now to
Congressman Umali, Your Honor?
"The Presiding Officer. The gentleman from Mindoro is
recognized.
"Representative Umali. Thank you, Your Honors.
"You Honor please, last Thursday, I left the Senate halls duringthe hearing. I went to do my job as a congressman of the 2
ndDistrict
of Oriental Mindoro. I went to the Department of Public Works and
Highways to follow up my projects in said department. And, on the
way out, I could not really actually recall what particular instance
that I was - that this document was given me, I think I was handed
this envelope and immediately I gave it to my aide and went directly
to the Department of Public Works and Highways. And then on the
way back from Department of Public Works and Highways, I went to
the hotel mentioned by Honorable - of Prosecutor Tupas in RoxasBoulevard and we had a meeting there but I had to leave shortly
after I handed this document to him, after seeing the document that
I felt it was so important for the Prosecution to know and to discuss
on how to go about it. But I was no longer present in the meeting
because I had to attend a TV show, Duelo, with one of the
8/3/2019 Prosecution's Compliance Explanation Re: "Fake" or "Forged" Documents
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prosecutions-compliance-explanation-re-fake-or-forged-documents 10/13
10
spokespersons of the Defense in that particular program. So I could
not actually recall - I could recall a small lady but the lady was - I
could not remember at all who this person was because it was just
handed to me and I was on the way out already.
"Senator Escudero. Mr. President, I thank the good gentleman
for his explanation and also Congressman Tupas.
"Mr. President, I raised this issue actually if only to place on
record and manifest that in granting the subpoena, the Senate is not
in any way - and that is my understanding - tolerating any violations
of the law in order to obtain evidence or details of evidence to be
subpoenaed. That in so issuing the subpoena, as specified by the
Order of the Court, that the Senate does not in any way allow nordoes it give its consent for such practices in violation of the law to be
done by either side, either by the Prosecution or by the Defense. I
submit, Mr. President.
"Thank you, Your Honor.
"Representative Umali. If I may just manifest, Your Honor. If
Your Honors please.
"There was no intent to violate. I guess this was an action
taken by concerned citizen who wanted this thing out and it was
handed to this representation, Your Honor. And precisely, I gave it to
the Prosecution Team for them to study on -
"The Presiding Officer. Where was the envelope given to the
Congressman?
"Representative Umali. I could not exactly recall.
"The Presiding Officer. Was it in the Department of Public
Works?
"Representative Umali. Not at all, Your Honor. I was here in
the Senate and then I left at about, more or less 2:30 and then I went
to - I could not exactly recall where because there were just so
many documents that were handed to me on that particular
instance.
"The Presiding Officer. But you mentioned about a lady, a
short lady.
"Representative Umali. Yes, Your Honor.
8/3/2019 Prosecution's Compliance Explanation Re: "Fake" or "Forged" Documents
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prosecutions-compliance-explanation-re-fake-or-forged-documents 11/13
11
"The Presiding Officer. Where did you see that short lady?
"Representative Umali. It could have been. Your Honor. in the
Secretariat or on the way out before I rode my vehicle going to theDepartment of Public Works and Highways, Your Honor.
"The Presiding Officer. And you saw that the lady handed the
envelope to you?
"Representative Umali. He just passed on and I thought-
"The Presiding Officer. To whom? To whom?
"Representative Umali. To me, Your Honor.
"The Presiding Officer. To you?
"Representative Umali. Yes, Your Honor.
"The Presiding Officer. And you do not know the lady at all.
"Representative Umali. Not at all, Your Honor.
"The Presiding Officer. We leave it at that. x x x" [Emphasis
and underscoring supplied]
15. With respect to the report of the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms regarding
the CCTV footage supposedly showing that there was no "small lady" seen with
Rep. Umali on February 2, 2012, it must be noted that Rep. Umali has not been
furnished a copy of the said report and he has not been shown the CCTV footage
that was supposedly the basis for the report. It is thus very difficult fo r him to
directly comment on the said report or CCTV footage, as he has no idea what the
CCTV footage contains (e.g., what was the duration of the footage, what areas
were covered, from what angle, etc.). The dictum of fairness and equity
necessitate that Representative Umali should be given opportunity to examine,
8/3/2019 Prosecution's Compliance Explanation Re: "Fake" or "Forged" Documents
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prosecutions-compliance-explanation-re-fake-or-forged-documents 12/13
12
review and rebut the findings of this Impeachment Court which was the result of
an ex parte investigation.
16.At any rate, while Rep. Umali stands by the explanation he gave last
February 6, 2012, it should be borne in mind that he never claimed to have
perfect recollection of the circumstances in which the documents were given to
him. As previously noted, in his explanation given last February 6, 2012, he
admitted that he could not distinctly recall exactly who gave him the documents,
or when the documents were given to him, or where the documents were given
to him.
17. On the other hand, with all due respect, it would be unwarranted for
any conclusion to be made that the subject documents are "fake" based merely
on the statement made by the witness, despite the fact that there is an admission
that no examination was conducted on the original documents. Hence, in the
interest of fair play, it is imperative that the assailed documents be compared
with the original bank records to settle once and for all the authenticity or falsity
of the subject document. The said inspection and scrutiny would not violate the
rule on confidentiality because it would not inquire into the contents of the
accounts but merely as to the authenticity of the subject documents.
18. Finally, even assuming for the sake of argument that there was a
violation of the confidentiality of bank deposits, the issues arising therefrom or
relating thereto, and/or the liability therefor (i f any) should be threshed out in
another proceeding before another forum. (Even then, presuming that the
subject documents are indeed authentic bank records, the persons liable therefor
8/3/2019 Prosecution's Compliance Explanation Re: "Fake" or "Forged" Documents
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prosecutions-compliance-explanation-re-fake-or-forged-documents 13/13
13
would be the official custodians of the documents and not the parties to these
proceedings.) It is respectfully submitted that the task at hand is to try the instant
impeachment case and receive the evidence that are being presented by the
parties.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Pasay City, Manila. 14 February 2012.
By:
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
PANEL OF PROSECUTORS
Copy furnished (By Personal Service):
JUSTICE SERAFIN R. CUEVAS (RET), ET AL.
Counsel for Respondent Chief Justice Renato Corona
Suite 1902 Security Bank Centre
6776 Ayala Avenue
Makati City, Philippines 1226