Prosecution bid to subpoena Corona, family denied

THE defense took “Round 2” of the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona after the senator-judges voted 14-6 against the House prosecution's request to subpoena Chief Justice Renato Corona and several members of his family.

Rep. Niel Tupas Jr., the lead prosecutor had already accepted the ruling but Sen.Alan Peter Cayetano sought a modification of the ruling with regard to the prohibition to compel Corona’s wife, children, and children-in-law to testify during the trial. This compelled Enrile to put the matter to a vote.

“We cannot deny the subpoena because we cannot predict if and when the daughters will in fact manifest or claim the privilege and/or the husband will claim [it]," Cayetano said referring to the rules of court prohibiting children from testifying against their parents.

Cayetano, Senators Pia Cayetano, Aquilino Pimentel III, Teofisto Guingona III, Antonio Trillanes IV, and Manuel Villar voted against Enrile’s ruling.

In favor were Senate President Pro Tempore Jinggoy Estrada, Senate Majority Floor Leader Vicente Sotto III, Senators Edgardo Angara, Joker Arroyo, Franklin Drilon, Francis Escudero, Gregorio Honasan, Ferdinand Marcos Jr., Panfilo Lacson, Lito Lapid, Sergio Osmena III, Francis Pangilinan, Ralph Recto, and Ramon "Bong" Revilla Jr.

Two senators were absent from the proceedings. Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago is on sick leave while Sen.Loren Legarda is in the United States.

Enrile also ruled against the motion of the prosecution requiring Corona to be always present during the trial and compel him to take the witness stand. 

The court denied the prosecution’s motion dated Jan. 12, 2012 to subpoena Corona, his wife, Cristina, their children, Carla Corona-Castillo, and Francisco Corona and their children’s spouses, Constantino Castillo III and Charina, respectively, to require them to appear and testify during the hearing as well as bring with them documents covering ownership of 45 properties located in Metro Manila. 

The prosecution had wanted the Senate to subpoena Corona, his wife Cristina, children Francis, Charina, Carla Corona-Castillo and son-in-law Constantino Castillo III to attend the impeachment trial to shed light on the respondent’s alleged ill-gotten wealth. But Corona denied ownership of all of them saying that only five of these questioned properties belong to him.  

Corona’s counsels have asked the Senate to deny the motion of the House prosecutors to compel him and his immediate family members to testify concerning his alleged questionable 45 properties in Metro Manila.  

Enrile asked Senate Secretary Emma Lirio-Reyes to read the ruling. “This Court resolves to deny the request. First, the primary request for the issuance of subpoena to respondent Chief Justice is to require him to testify for the prosecution in relation to the articles of impeachment filed against him. This cannot be done without the respondent’s constitutional right against self incrimination,” she said.

The Court noted that it denied the prosecution’s motion by reason of marriage. During their marriage neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse.

“The reasons given are: there is identity of interest between husband and wife. Second, if one testifies for or against the other there is consequent danger of perjury. Third, the policy of the law is to guard the security of private life even at the risk of occasional failure of justice and to prevent domestic disunion and unhappiness. And fourth, where there is want of domestic tranquility there is danger of punishing one’s spouse to the hostile testimony of the other,” the Court said.

With regard to Corona’s children, the Court said that under Section 25 of the revised Rules of Court, they are prevented from testifying against their father under the provision of parental and filial privilege.

“No person would be compelled to testify against his parents and other direct descendants. The disqualification is intended to preserve family solidarity and to prevent a common child to be used by a parent against the other in a criminal case,” the senator-judges said.

“The solidarity and unity of the family is shattered when a child takes sides in a parental feud. Thus, this court cannot issue subpoena to respondent Chief Justice Corona’s children,” they added.

With regard to Corona’s son-in-law and daughter-in-law, the Senate “adopts the doctrine of necessary implication.” This means that the court believes that “by necessary implication, children-in-law are covered by the prohibition to testify on account of parental and filial privilege.” 

“The rationalization of this court is bolstered taking into account the solidarity and unity of the family. Wherefore, in view of foregoing the request for the issuance of subpoena (filed by the prosecution panel) dated Jan.12, 2012 be denied for lack of merit,” the senator-judges said.