'Prosecution panel may be held liable for presenting fake documents'

MANILA, Philippines - The members of the prosecution panel in the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona could be held liable for requesting to subpoena the chief magistrate’s bank accounts based on documents of questionable authenticity, after a bank branch manager claimed that the documents they presented were fake.

The Senate impeachment court asked the prosecution panel to explain how the bank documents attached to the motion came into their possession.

A review of the tapes from the Senate closed circuit television (CCTV) showed that there was no “little lady” who approached Mindoro Rep. Reynaldo Umali, which contradicted what the prosecution lawyer claimed previously.

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile said he intends to get to the bottom of the issue because the Senate may have been fooled into issuing the subpoenas to Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank).

“I did not make a mistake (of issuing the subpoena) based on the document presented to me. I am interested to find out whether there is deceit in the request,” Enrile said.

Enrile explained that even if the prosecution panel filed their request in good faith, they still have the responsibility to ensure that the documents they are presenting in court are authentic.

“We presume good faith, but it is the responsibility of the parties asking the help of the court to see to it that the ethics of the profession must always be there to guide,” he said.

Enrile added that he did not expect Annabelle Tiongson, branch manager of PS Bank, to say that the presented documents were fake.

Enrile said the explanation of the prosecution panel will determine the sanction that will be imposed on whoever was responsible for the presentation of the alleged fake documents to the impeach court.

“All lawyers know the sanction. I will not say what it is... I’ll cross the bridge when I’m there,” Enrile said.

Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III said that the members of the prosecution are not allowed to just cite the emergence of an anonymous source as their defense.

“We cannot allow that. They were not exactly truthful,” Sotto said.

It was Sotto who initiated the review of the CCTV tapes and found the claims of Umali about a small lady giving him the documents inside the Senate as without any basis.

Umali said that he is standing by his story and sought a chance to review the CCTV tapes of the Senate.

Marikina City Rep. Romero Quimbo, one of the spokespersons of the prosecution panel, said there was never any attempt on their part to mislead the impeachment court and the public.

“If you read our supplemental motion on our request to subpoena the bank records, we even said with great caution that we cannot vouch for the authenticity of the documents, but they actually turned out to be true,” Quimbo said.

He added, “The best proof that it came from the bank is that the accounts precisely matched. The bank officials (Tiongson and the bank’s president Pascual Garcia III) confirmed the existence of the accounts, that they were owned by the Chief Justice.”