THE Senate impeachment court on Wednesday barred House prosecutors from presenting evidence on the alleged ill-gotten wealth of Chief Justice Renato Corona, saying those could not be considered part of Article 2 of the impeachment complaint.
The senator-judges decided in favor of the defense after considering written arguments from both sides at a caucus Wednesday morning before the trial resumed in the afternoon.
But the prosecutors were allowed to present evidence on Corona’s reported properties that were not declared in his statements of assets and liabilities and net worth.
The ruling to bar evidence aimed at proving ill-gotten wealth was seen as a blow to the prosecution, which has said Article 2 is its strongest case against the chief justice.
As the trial continued on Wednesday, the prosecution presented Internal Revenue Commissioner Kim Henares to testify on Corona’s tax payments.
Because his employment at the Supreme Court was his only source of income, Corona was not required to file an income tax return, Henares said.
Such employees who had their taxes withheld at the source were covered instead by an “alpha list” submitted by employers to the Bureau of Internal Revenue, she said.
Although the impeachment court had subpoenaed Corona’s tax returns from 2002, Henares said the bureau only had the alpha list for 2007 to 2010.
The list showed Corona paid P117,399.31 in taxes on an income of P488,156,57 in 2007, P154,057.75 on an income of P606,388.46 in 2008, P155,556.20 on an income of P621,528.62 in 2009, and P176,577.32 on an income of P657,755.57 in 2010.
The defense objected that the information was immaterial, but private prosecutor Arthur Lim argued that the disclosure of Corona’s tax payments and income would show that he could not have afforded to buy the prime real estate properties under his and his family’s names.
Henares said Corona’s wife Cristina was not a registered taxpayer until 2003, when she allegedly became a “one-time taxpayer” on the purchase of a house in a posh subdivision in Quezon City.
She said Cristina’s purchase of a house in La Vista, without proof of income, prompted the tax agency to investigate the transaction, adding that they only discovered the transaction after the Senate subpoenaed the documents relating to the purchase.
“We will conduct a tax probe on Mrs. Corona…” Henares said. “Mrs. Corona had no income during the time she purchased the P11-million La Vista property.”
But Enrile brushed aside Henares’ statements as hearsay because she said she was not present during the transaction.
Under questioning by Senator-Judge Joker Arroyo, Henares said it was President Benigno Aquino III who ordered her to produce the documents on the income tax returns of the Corona couple.
Henares read the written order issued to her by Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr. “upon the orders of President Benigno Aquino III.”
She said Internal Revenue kept records showing such transactions because before a land title transfer could be made, a buyer or seller should pay the capital gains tax and documentary stamp tax.
“When somebody sells, taxes should be fully paid,” she said.
Henares then continued to recite details of the other property purchases made by the Coronas.
Prosecution panel spokesman and Marikina Rep. Romero Quimbo said that, in all, Corona purchased P20 million worth of property that “are not supported by his compensation income.”
Enrile said that while the admission of evidence on ill-gotten wealth had been deferred, the burden of proof would now rest on Corona’s defense lawyers to convince the senator-judges that Corona’s acquisition of property was not grossly disproportionate to his income.
But he doused cold water on a prosecution’s request to subpoena the bank records of the Corona couple.
“The prosecution has to tell us if they have evidence to show the court that the bank accounts have huge deposits,” Enrile said.
The defense said it would oppose any attempt by House prosecutors to present evidence, including bank accounts, if those were used to prove allegations of Corona’s ill-gotten wealth.
Defense panel spokeswoman Karen Jimeno said they would also look into possible violations of the Bank Secrecy Law and would argue against the relevance of the bank accounts to the allegations in Article 2 of the impeachment complaint.
Comments
Post a Comment