Cock and bull story - double whammy for the prosecution (is it real?)

instrumental for the issuance of the subpoena is the bank document submitted by the prosecution. the fake bank document is the sole reason why the senate impeachment court decided to issue a subpoena to the concerned banks. but what is the connection between the aforesaid fake bank document to the fabricated story of umali regarding her mystic little lady? isn't it intriguing?

here is the catch, it is "only" tupas and umali who signed the request for the impeachment court to issue a subpoena to the banks using the fake bank document. PS bank branch manager tiongson refused to deny or confirm that tupas is a valued depositor in their branch (PS bank katipunan). it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the only "way" to produce similar but false copy of the bank document of the CJ, is to have someone from the bank itself leak the document. it is ironic that tiongson refuses to confirm if tupas is a valued depositor in PS bank katipunan. the possibility of connivance is not a far fetch idea. tupas may have requested to leak the bank document of corona through tiongson. now, the prosecution needed to come up with a story to cover the crime. here comes umali to the rescue. as a result, umali came up with an impossible story about a little lady who he claims handed him the fake documents. this is ofcourse to cover the crime perpetrated by tupas. however, the problem is, umali is not at all good at lying. since he claim that the little lady handed him the document around 2:30 pm on his way out of the senate, he failed to realize that people from the senate can ask for a review of the CCTV. since the senate sergeant of arms did not see the little lady's apparition in the CCTV, it became obvious that umali is lying to his teeth.

but the worse thing about it is that, these prosecutors who are also lawyers, clearly violated Republic Act 1405 for using a document from an anonymous source. how can you exact accountability or determine the authenticity of such document if it came from an anonymous source? sen-judge miriam is so infuriated about this that caused her blood pressure to shoot up. clearly, what the prosecution did especially umali and tupas is a ground for disbarment.

second, the prosecution never took the time to determine the authenticity of such document. the law dictates that the foreign currency deposits (dollar account) cannot be disclosed unless with the consent of the depositor. given this law, the prosecutors should have refuse to present the document or even use it. since the document was produced without the consent of the depositor, the document is either fake or illegally acquired. if the document is illegally acquired, then it is a violation of the law specifically Republic Act 1405. these prosecutors / lawyers should know that.

the senate allowed the fake document to be used for the issuance of the subpoena without trying to verify or confirm the authenticity of such document. JPE said the impeachment court assumed that the document is authentic and was submitted in good faith by the prosecution. that for me is a lame excuse.

damage has been done to the accuse even without the opening of the dollar account. why did the senate allowed the issue of bank account of corona to be discuss when in fact the prosecution failed to prove the materiality and relevancy of the issue to the impeachment case that they filed against the CJ. apparently, the senate made a ruling that prohibits both the defense and prosecution to tackle par. 2.4 of article 2 since the articles of impeachment did not allege corona of amassing ill-gotten wealth. if the impeachment court is trying corona for an accusation (ill-gotten wealth) that he was never accused, then the senate impeachment court is in violation of their own ruling. thus, making the impeachment court a kangaroo court and a court open for fishing expedition!

Ang makakasagot lang nyan ay kung buksan ni Corona lahat ng account nya. Kung wala namang illegal dapat pumayag syang ipakita ang lahat para matapos na ang batuhan. Di na kailangan ibase sa batas o technicality o gamitin ang SC - kung talagang malinis si Corona, ipakita nya sa lahat ang account nya, lalo na sa mga iniisip nyang bias na judge. Ang masama takot sya at nagtatago rin ng katotohanan. Sabi nya ipapakita nya at the right time. Bakit hindi ngayon na lang para matapos ang boxing.

Trouble with Corona and his defense team is they see only bias on the side of prosecution. The people have noticed how the focus of Joker and Meriam are directed only on humiliating prosecution team. Just when the favor is tilting against the defense for announcing an alleged move by Malacanang to bribe senator judges, Meriam shifted the focus on the authenticity of evidence, disregarding outright and successfully shifting the momentum against the prosecution. Allan Cayetano says it right that the questioning of witnesses is done because we are still in the stage of presentation by prosecution. Defense must wait for its turn and then make comment. The defense profess many times that public must not yet judge the case until the defense has presented their side. Why would defense cry foul at this early. Sen. Osmena is right to say that the objective of this complaint is to lay the foundation of a "Mistrial". Then the SC would be asked to review the decision.

THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS MIGHT MAKE US A LAUGHING STOCK OF THE WORLD (by: Atty. Vic Velasquez, Houston, Texas)

The ABS-CBNNEWS quoted Senator Enrile as follows:

"We are 23 minds here. We are a body of jurors. In a body of jurors, each one has his own perception and interest in this case in order to make a final judgment. I am not in the position to deny that right to any member of this body,"

When he referred to ‘jurors” is the impeachment proceedings likened to a “jury trial”? If so, the impeachment proceedings or the senators, purposely or through sheer ignorance of the “jury system”, are violating basic and fundamental principles, tenets and/or procedure of a “jury trial” system that serve as foundations for people to trust the “jury system”. The violations are so basic, but nonetheless so crucial and important, that the continuation of such violations would result in the people losing trust and confidence in the impeachment proceedings, or worse, lose trust in the impartiality of the senators or their capability to render fair judgment on the sole basis of the evidence admitted in the proceedings. Is it surprising that the last time an impeachment trial (Erap’s trial) resulted in another people power (aka rebellion)?

Generally, all rules and procedures in a “jury trial” should have the sole purpose of eliminating bias and prejudice among the jurors; we cannot say that this is so in relation to the impeachment proceedings as, among other partial conducts, some of the senators either have shown their bias by their actions in the impeachment proceedings or through their statements to the media. In a real “jury trial”, the jurors are prohibited from asking questions and are likewise prohibited from talking about the case before a jury verdict has been made. This basic rule safeguards against generating bias or prejudice for or against any party to the case. Another basic rule is that any question of law is for the judge to decide; in the impeachment proceeding the chairman acts as the judge and rules on the question of law. The jurors do not make findings of law; the jurors make only findings of facts AFTER the trial. Further, Senator Enrile said “each one (of the jurors) has his own ….. interest in this case”. In a real jury trial, it is a NO NO for any juror to have any “interest” in the case. There are many other basic rules of the jury system that are being violated in the impeachment proceedings, so many that it would require a thesis to make a substantial discussion or would require a total overhaul or start-over of the impeachment proceedings.

I anticipate that the senators (jurors) would insist on continuing with their version of the “jury system” in their impeachment proceedings. The world is watching and many know the fundamental rules of a jury trial. If the senators insist on continuing with their version of the “jury system”, they run the danger of being accused of making a MOCKERY OF THE JURY SYSTEM and/or run the risk of being the LAUGHING STOCK OF THE WORLD. I suggest that the senators refrain from using the term “juror” which obviously was derived from the “jury system” as the “jury system” and its basic rules stand for fairness to opposing litigants in a case, which fairness, I am sorry to say, is far from what the impeachment proceedings have.
About the author: Atty. Vic Velasquez is a practicing attorney in the United States particularly the State of Texas and the State of New York. His practice includes Jury Trial. He is the first Filipino lawyer to take the Texas Bar Exams and pass it on his first take. He may be contacted at AttyVic@yahoo.com or tel: +18326327271