Bank manager denies link to Tupas

MANILA, Philippines - A witness in the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona denied yesterday that she had close ties with Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr., the lead prosecutor.

Responding to questions from Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, a judge in the impeachment court, Annabelle Tiongson, manager of Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank) Katipunan branch, said, “I reiterate, I don’t know any of them.”

However, Estrada said the relatives of Tiongson are politically linked to the family of Tupas.

Tiongson’s cousin, Roberto Armada, and Tupas’ brother Raul were running mates in the vice-gubernatorial and gubernatorial elections in Iloilo in the 2010 elections, he added.

Armada was vice-governor when Tupas’ father, Niel Sr., served as Iloilo governor, he said.

Estrada told Tiongson it’s so obvious that her family and the Tupas family know each other.

“Now you’re still denying that you don’t know even one member of Tupas family,” he said.

Estrada said it was “absurd” that Tiongson never got the chance to meet Tupas, given their families’ political links.

“It is not my intention to ruin the name of the Tupas family, but I hope they would respect my opinion that I do not believe that they do not know each other when their families are political allies,” he said in Filipino.

“Who knows if it wasn’t the branch manager who leaked the bank document to the prosecution?”

Tupas asked the senator-judges to avoid dragging the name of any member of his family into the controversy.

“The name of my family was mentioned,” he said.

“I’m not acquainted with the witness Miss Annabelle Tiongson. The first time I saw her was last Monday.”

Corona’s accounts

Tiongson had testified that the bank documents on alleged dollar accounts of Corona attached to the prosecution’s request for subpoena were fakes.

Corona was accused of failing to accurately disclose his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth apparently evidenced by his bank accounts in PSBank.

The prosecution said it should not be blamed for the presentation of unauthenticated bank documents in their supplemental quest for subpoena on Corona’s bank accounts.

“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) for all the respondent’s accounts (peso and dollar) with PSBank,” the prosecution said.

In their memorandum to the impeachment court, the prosecution said PSBank president Pascual Garcia III had confirmed the existence of 10 accounts identified in Annexes A to A-4.

“Even the defense effectively admitted the existence of the dollar of accounts by undertaking to open them ‘in due time’,” the prosecution said.

The prosecution said the impeachment court cannot just rely on statements of PSBank officers about the authenticity of Annexes A to A-4, without actual documents to back up those statements.

“(PSBank officers) have a natural motive to deny the authenticity of the bank documents because they would want to avoid potential liability for the possible leakage of their bank records,” the prosecution said.

The prosecution said the actual bank records of Corona must be produced for proper comparison and verification.

In his report to the impeachment court, Tupas said the prosecution had received the documents from an anonymous source.

“The prosecution felt that it was its duty to submit said documents to the honorableiImpeachment court for consideration in relation to the (then) pending request for subpoena to PSBank,” he said.

The prosecution said it would be unwarranted for any conclusion to be made that the subject documents are “fake” since no examination has been conducted on the original documents.

“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 prosecution said.

The prosecution moved for the impeachment court to summon the custodians of the documents.

“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,” the prosecution said.

Defense respects Palace view

Meanwhile, the defense is respecting the view of Malacañang that the bank documents presented before the impeachment court were authentic.

Lawyer Tranquil Salvador III, a defense spokesman, said Malacañang was just giving its own observations on what is happening in the impeachment proceedings.

“I don’t want to say that the Palace is interfering,” he said.

“These are observations, and I hope really these are observations.

“I believe in them that hopefully, they will not interfere and these are just their observations. It’s natural… even an ordinary person can give an observation.” –With Christina Mendez