Verdict in on 2nd day: Prosecution not ready

THE IMPEACHMENT trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona adjourned early on its second day yesterday, with the prosecution admitting unpreparedness to prose- cute him on Article 1. It was ready to prosecute Corona on Article 2 but had no witnesses to authenticate the documents it was set to present as evidence.

After Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile gave the go-signal for the presentation of evidence, Cavite Rep. Elpidio Barzaga Jr. admitted that the prosecution was prepared to present evidence only on the second article of impeachment, mainly consisting, he said, of certified true copies of titles to alleged Corona properties from the Land Registration Authority (LRA).

In the eight articles of impeachment,

the first refers to Corona’s alleged partiality and subservience in cases involving former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-arroyo, and the second article, his alleged failure to file his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNS).

When asked by Enrile if the prosecution would present LRA officials who could authenticate the documents, Barzaga said it had no such witnesses, and indicated that it was willing to postpone the hearing so both the prosecution and defense panels could prepare.

“Oh, so you wanted postponement all along,” Enrile said, chuckling. He then ordered the postponement of the trial for today, ending the proceedings at around 4 p.m.

“In view of the circumstance we’re in and in view of the perception of the presiding officer that the prosecution is not prepared to present evidence today, the court motu proprio postpones the trial until [Wednesday] afternoon, at 2 o’clock,” he said.

Disappointment

After the hearing, Sen. Pia Cayetano said: “Clearly, they were not prepared today … We trust this will move forward. I guess there are degrees of adjustments to be made.”

Quezon Rep. Lorenzo Tañada III, a deputy spokesperson of the prosecution, expressed disappointment at the turn of events.

Tañada said the delay in the proceedings could have been avoided had there been a pretrial hearing.

“[J]ust to be candid about it, I am willing to accept that I am disappointed with the turnout,” he said.

In a text message to reporters, President Aquino’s spokesperson Edwin Lacierda said the prosecutors were saddled with a big responsibility in the impeachment trial of the Chief Justice.

“We continue to monitor the proceedings. Together with the rest of the nation, we believe that a lot rests on the shoulders of the prosecution, and expectations are high,” Lacierda said.

“The prosecution will surely heed the lessons of [yesterday’s] proceedings. We are confident the truth will emerge during the trial,” he said.

‘Not a matter of right’

After the impeachment court disposed of the motions of the prosecution and defense panels by midafternoon, Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III said it was now ready for the presentation of evidence.

Barzaga, the secondary prosecutor on the second article of impeachment, declared that the panel would present evidence “in so far as Article 2 is concerned.”

When asked why the prosecution was altering the sequence of the presentation of evidence, he said: “In so far as the practice of law is concerned, the party presenting evidence has the power to determine what would be the order of the presentation of complaints … Article 2 deals with SALN and ill-gotten wealth. This issue has been the subject of discussion before the media. No less than the respondent said that he owns only five properties.

“It would be in the interest of all parties and the public for the panel to present evidence on Article 2 in view of reports on Corona’s properties, and that even the Chief Justice had indicated his willingness to donate the properties to [flood] victims in Cagayan de Oro.”

Why the deviation?

Chief defense lawyer Serafin Cuevas objected, arguing that the determination of the order of the presentation of evidence by the prosecution was only “discretionary” and not “a matter of right.”

“We were served with a copy of the impeachment complaint. There were eight grounds. We want to believe that any or all grounds will be presented in the manner they were stated. Why the deviation?” Cuevas said. “I don’t see any reason why they can’t proceed with No. 1.”

Asked by Enrile if the prosecution was ready to present evidence on the first article of impeachment, Barzaga said the panel was “ready for Article 2.”

To Enrile’s question of why the prosecution did not make Article 2 the No. 1 article, Barzaga said the panel considered all the articles important.

Joker’s proposal

At this point, Sen. Joker Arroyo, a prosecutor in the aborted impeachment trial of then President Joseph Estrada in 2000 to 2001, proposed that the prosecution rearrange the sequence of the presentation of evidence.

“I don’t think we can limit the presentation of the articles on the part of the prosecution. I had once been a prosecutor, and sometimes we have witnesses, and sometimes we don’t. So we rearrange it. That’s what happened at the Estrada impeachment [trial],” Arroyo said.

“To solve the problem, may we request the prosecution to now rearrange the presentation of [its] evidence, and that would help everyone ... So if you can rearrange it, I think it would be for the good of all,” he said.

Enrile agreed with the proposal “for orderly proceeding.”

Cuevas said the defense panel was prepared to cross-examine any witness to be called by the prosecution panel.

Defense not ready

Barzaga reiterated that the prosecution was ready to present evidence on the second article, and said it would file a written manifestation on the order of the presentation of evidence today.

Cuevas countered that the defense panel was prepared for Article 1, but not Article 2.

“Trial is a battle of legal minds … We want to manifest that we’re not ready in so far as evidence for No. 2 is concerned,” Cuevas said.

Barzaga said the prosecution was presenting “certified true copies” of the titles to Corona’s alleged properties, as well as the deeds of absolute sale. He said these were “computergenerated” documents from the LRA.

“I don’t think the defense will be having a cross-examination. We will just be proving that the respondents are the owners of property on the basis of the records of the LRA,” he said.

An adamant Cuevas said: “We have the right to cross-examine. We will never be deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine.”

Sensing that he could not wiggle out of the sticky situation, Barzaga requested the court “to postpone the hearing.”

“That’s what you wanted all along,” Enrile quipped, causing the gallery to erupt in laughter.

Birth pains

Yesterday’s confusion as to the state of preparedness of the prosecution and defense panels that led to the postponement of the trial is part of the “birth pains” that the prosecution must bear, according to Marikina Rep. Romero Quimbo, a spokesperson of the panel.

Quimbo said Barzaga’s motion to postpone was on his own volition and echoed Tañada in saying that the disagreement on the presentation of evidence could have been avoided had the Senate court consented to a pretrial.

“These are all birth pains. Like we said from the beginning, if there are birth pains, we are at a disadvantage because the prosecution will bear the brunt of [it]. This [proceeding] is unique; that’s why there are always changes,” he said in a press conference.

Misconception

Quimbo said Barzaga decided to seek a postponement after hearing that Cuevas was not also prepared to cross-examine on the second impeachment article.

“I think there was really an overtaking of all the debates that were ongoing. [Barzaga] made a decision on the floor, particularly when Cuevas said they were not ready to cross-examine on Article 2. [Barzaga] said that out of fairness—anyway, the witnesses will be arriving [today], particularly to authenticate—then we can defer the proceedings until [today],” Quimbo explained.

“Of course, it’s all a lesson learned for all of us,” he said.

Aurora Rep. Juan Edgardo Angara, a deputy spokesperson of the panel, said the idea that the prosecution was not prepared with its evidence was a misconception.

He showed reporters hundreds of certified true copies of documents that, he claimed, complied with the best-evidence rule and that the prosecution was prepared to present for marking.

Ice-breaker

Although the prosecution fared badly on the second day of the trial, Barzaga’s performance broke the ice in the impeachment court, with some senator-judges approaching the members of the contending panels when the hearing adjourned.

Arroyo walked over to the prosecutors and conducted a pep talk of sorts, while Sen. Panfilo Lacson engaged a defense lawyer in conversation.