motion to quash subpoena feb6 a1022

8/3/2019 Motion to Quash Subpoena Feb6 A1022

1/6

3L\.epublic of tbe ~ b H i p p i n e ~ < ! L o n g r e ~ ~ of tbe ~ b i l i p p i n e ~

I

~ e n a t e :,

- I,>., ,,,

'17 fEB -6 mo :22

SITTING AS THE I M P E A C H M E I ~ . J T COURT ',:

IN THE MATTER OF THEIMPEACHMENT OFRENATO C. CORONA ASCHIEF JUSTICE OF THESUPREME COURT OF THEPHILIPPINES.REPRESENTATIVES NIELC. TUPAS, JR., JOSEPHEMILIO A. ABAYA,LORENZO R. TANADA III,REYNALDO V. UMALI,ARLENE J. BAG-AO, et al.

,

Case; No. 002-2011

!x ...........................- .....................................-- ................----................................. -- .................----........-----..J;-x

IMOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAIChief Justice Renato C. Corona ("CJ Corona"), by colunsel, and as a measure of!extreme caution dictated by the unusual circumstances of FS case, without waiving,

his right to file the appropriate legal remedy to question, ~ o n g others, the legality of,these proceedings, respectfully states:

!1. This Honorable Court's Subpoena Duces Tecum!Ad Testificandum dated 17!IJanuary 2012 to Commissioner Kim Jacinto Henares ("Cqmmissioner Henares") ofiithe Bureau of Internal Revenue (the "Subpoena') directed lier to bring and testify on,

Motion to Quash SubpoenaPage 1 0/6


2/6

Ithe Annual Income Tax Returns, Certificates of InJome Tax Withheld on

!

Compensation, Certificates of Income Payments not SUbidcted to Withholding Tax,I

and Certificates of Creditable Tax Withheld at Source of C] Corona, Mrs. Cristina R.ICorona, Maria Carla R. Corona-Castillo, Constantino TJ Castillo III, Francis R.ICorona and Maria Charina R. Corona, before this Honorablf Court.

2. Rule 128, Section 3 of the Rules of Court srates that "(e)vidence is!admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law orthese rules."

As the record of this case shows, q Coronk has raised a continuing I3.iIobjection to Complainants' presentation of evidence on h i ~ supposed acquisition of!wealth, and alleged acts of graft and corruption, on the gr tnd that such charges are

beyond the scope of Article II of the Impeachment Compldint. Furthermore, it is C]I

Corona's position that the continuous presentation of s u c ~ irrelevant and immaterialIevidence, which are not even based on ultimate facts, woul4 violate his constitutionali

right to due process and to be properly informed of the chaJges against him.

I4. A thorough examination of the Subpoena slh.ows that it also directsiiCommissioner Henares to bring the Income Tax Retu:t:rs (['IRs) and other tax

certificates of the children and son-in-law of CJ Corona, w ~ o are not even named inthe Verified Complaint. I

I5. The presentation of the ITRs and tax c e r t i f i c a ~ e s of the Corona children

ishould not be allowed for being without basis, i r r e l e v a n ~ and immaterial to theseI

Motion toQuash SubpoenaPage2of6


3/6

p 'o_. Arock II of 'he Compl'''', writt= by O O ~ L U r u w ' " m=ly ch""",C] Corona with the following: I

IRESPONDENT COMMITTED C U L P A B L ~ VIOLATION OFTHE CONSTITUTION AND/OR BETRAYED THE PUBLIC

TRUST WHEN HE FAILED TO DISCLOSE TO tHE PUBLIC HISSTATEMENT OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES AND NET WORTH ASREQUIRED UNDER SEC. 17, ART. XI i OF THE 1987CONSTITUTION. I6. It cannot be d.enied. that CJ Corona is befng accused only of his

Ialleged failure to disclose to the public his Statement 1f Assets, Liabilities andNet Worth (SALN), no more, no less.

7. The testimony of Commissioner Henares I on the ITRs and taxIcertificates of the Corona children, as well as the presentation thereof, are therefore

irrelevant and innnaterial to the issue of whether or noJ CJ Corona failed to hisiIIdisclose his SALN to the public.8. Furthermore, it should also be stressed that the properties and income

of the other individuals have no bearing whatsoever to C] Jorona's SALN. Section 8!of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713, otherwise known as "Co4e of Conduct and EthicalIStandards for Public Officials and Employees" categorically ~ t a t e s : IiStatements and Disclosure. - Public officials and Iemployees have anobligation to accomplish and submit declarations und6: oath of, and thepublic has the right to know, their assets, liabilities, n e ~ worth and financialand business interests including those of their spousesl and of unmarriedchildren under eighteen (18) yeats of age living in t h ~ i r households.

* * *1 I9. Complainants have not shown whether C] Cotona's children, as listed in

Ithe Subpoena, are either unmarried, under eighteen (18) y e a ~ s old, or stiI1living in C]Corona's household. Neither has there been evidence to s h ~ w that C] Corona should

!1 Emphasis supplied.

Motion toQuash SubpoenaPage 3 016


4/6

have enumerated the properties of his children in his SAU'j, as RA. No. 6713 clearlyprovides that he does not. I

I. I10. Rille 128, Section 4 of the Rilles of Court states:Relevancy; collateral matters. - Evidence must {ave such a relationto the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence.Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, excbpt when it tends in

~ n ~ reasonable degree to establish the probability or imP!1obability of the factil l issue.

11. Evidence is relevant if it establishes directly f r indirectly the existenceor non-existence of the facts in issue.2 Evidence is :relevanv when it relates directly toa fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or nolexistence.3 Relevancy or

'ali f'd' f l' . . J d . d . 1 bmaten ty 0 eVl ence 18 a matter 0 oglc, smce it is etermme SlffiP y Yascertaining its logical connection to a fact in issue in thb case.4 The ITRs of the

IRespondent's immediate relatives are INADMISSIBLE IAS EVIDENCE. I t iselementary in the Rilles on Evidence that the rights of a p a r ~ cannot be prejudiced byan act, declaration, or omission of another.s The reason for rille is that:

. . . on a principle of good faith and mutual convJnience, a man's ownacts are binding upon himself, and are evidence agaihst him. So are hisconduct and declarations. Yet it would not only be righHy inconvenient, butalso manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound &y the acts of mereunauthorized strangers; and if a party ought not to be ~ o u n d by the acts ofstrangers, neither ought their acts or conduct be used as erdence against him.612. From the foregoing, it is clear that the presenrtion of the ITRs and tax

certificates of the Corona children, and Commissioner H ~ n a r e s ' testimony thereonIshould not be allowed. I-Ience, this Honorable Court's J11'ubpoena dated 17 January

2012 shoilld be quashed.2 Oscar M. Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. V Revised Rules on Evidence, 1999 Edibon, p. 23.3 Lejano v. People, C.R. No. 176389, December 14, 2010. II4 Cruz-Arevalo v. Querubin-Layosa, A.M. No. R1J-06-2005, July 14, 2006. !5 This is expressed in Section 28, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court: ISEC. 28. Admission by third party. - The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, oromission of another, except as hereinafter provided. I6 Tamargo v. Awingan, C.R. No. 177727, January 19, 2010, citing People l' Vda. De Ramos, 451 Phil. 214,224-225 (2003). I

Motion toQuash SubpoenaPage 4 0[6


5/6

PRAYERIWHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Chief 1ustice Renato C. Corona

respectfully prays that this Honorable Impeachment 90urt quash the SubpoenaDuces T e c u ~ Ad T e s t i f a c n d U ~ addressed to BIR. ~ ~ r m i s s i o n e r K i ~ ~ a c i n t o Henares, or m the alternative, Issue an Order prohibitlig her from tesufymg andpresenting evidence on the Annual Income Tax Returrls, Certificates of IncomeTax Withheld on Compensation, Certificates of Incomi Payments not Subjectedto Withholding Tax, and Certificates of 'Creditable TJx Withheld at Source of

IMaria Carla R. Corona:CasLillo, Constantino T. Castilio III, Francis R. Coronaand Maria Charina R. Corona, for being witholr basis, irrelevant andI'immaterial to Article II of the Impeachment Complainti

!

Oth" ,dieG, ju," 0 ' equiubl, =d" the ,Ju=t=c", '" l i k < W ~ t prayed for.

Makati for Pasay City, 6 February 2012.

Respectfully Submitted by ICounsel for Chief ]ustice Renato c.10rona.I

IPTR No. 2643183; 1/04/11; Makati CityJOSE M. R I I I 1!

IBP LRN 02570 August 20, 2001 (Li etime)Roll of Att?rneys No. 37065 IMCLE Exel1l;ption No. 1-000171Motion to Quash Subpoent'

P a g e ~ o f &


6/6

,MANALO )

PTR No. 31745833; 2 January 2012, Makati CityIBP No. 870170; 2 January 2012, Makii City

Roll No. 40950, 12 April 1996MCLE Compliance No. III-0009471, 26 Ipri12010

Copies furnished:House of RepresentativesBatasan ComplexBatasan Hills, Quezon City

\, .

HOUSE PRosECUntN PANEL,FU2CEIVl;DB ~ ~ t>,,,,TE 'J-J,L'

motion to quash subpoena feb6 a1022

Documents