SENATOR Aquilino Pimentel III could not help but give a “brotherly advice” to the prosecution panel to entirely abandon its plan to pin down impeached Chief Justice Renato Corona based on his alleged failure to declare in his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALN) the P10 million discount he got from Mega World  Corp. when he a bought a condominium unit from the real estate firm.

Pimentel said that the prosecution would have a difficult time convincing the Senate, sitting as impeachment court, to convict Corona under Article 2 of the impeachment complaint which deals with the latter’s alleged non-disclosure of the P10 million discount in his SALN.

“Bakit kasi kayo naka-focus sa discount. Nakita natin ‘di kami nakumbinsi sa relevance ng discount sa Article 2. Huwag n’yo na rin ipilit ang discount (issue) sa Article 3, kasi sa Article 3, flip flopping sa decision, talking sa litigants. Kaya payo lang, let go of the discount kasi wala s’ya sa Articles of Impeachment. Please ‘wag na pilitin, payong kapatid lang,” Pimentel stressed.

Sen. Ferdinand Marcos Jr. is also confused as to how he would relate the testimony of Noli Hernandez, Mega World marketing officer, to Corona’s alleged non-disclosure of his SALN.

“I’m perplexed. I’m a non-lawyer.  As I understand it, we are examining or talking about Article 2, the non-disclosure of Chief Justice Corona’s SALN. But I cannot make the connection of the testimony and how it impacts upon how we vote in Article 2,” Marcos said.

Ramon Esguerra, Corona’s spokesman, noted that the prosecution “would have wanted to make it appear that the large discount given by Mega World  to Corona for his purchased Bellagio condominium unit in 2008 was a ‘favor.” He added:”But what are the facts?”

“Chief Justice Corona allegedly favored Mega World in a decision as being concluded by some media outfits. But the timing of the decision and the discount do not add up,” he said.

Tranquil Salvador, one of Corona’s defense lawyers, was relieved that Hernandez was able to clarify the issue. “Ngayon nakita nila na ang diskwento is because of the water damage of the unit. At the same time the condition of the unit at mga standard discounts na talagang ibinibigay. In fact nakita ninyo si Sen.(Manuel) Villar (Jr.) sinabi na nuong magpapasko (nung 2011) isang condominium developer ang nagbigay ng discount na 40 percent.” 

“The witness (Hernandez) was very cool. Makatotohanan ang kanyang testimony. Makita n’yo ‘di man lang s’ya kinakabahan eh. Nakita n’yo naman ‘yung mga klase ng tanong na ibinibigay sa kanya. Sinusuri s’ya ng mga senator-judges kung talagang totoo ‘yung mga sinasabi niya. Nakita n’yo ilang senator-judges ang nagtanong sa kanya. Mahigit lima. Pero matibay ang kanyang testimonya kitang kita nyong nakatayo ang kanyang testimonya,” he told mediamen.

Esguerra said that records showed Megaworld Properties and Holdings, Inc. vs. Cobarde (G.R. No. 156200) was penned by then Associate Justice Corona and was promulgated on March 31, 2004. This decision granted the petition of Mega World and absolved it from the responsibility of paying broker’s commission in a compromise agreement.

In this case, the Supreme Court ordered Mega World to be paid over P5.8 million by the opposing parties.  “Connecting the decision to the alleged 40 percent discount amounting to P10 million requires some manipulative thinking,” Esguerra said.

The circumstances of the sale reveal that the Bellagio condominium unit was purchased in October 2008. The last payment of which was in October 2009. The decision was rendered in March 2004, he said.

“That Megaworld would extend to the Chief Justice the alleged discount in exchange for a favorable ruling five years earlier is incredulous. Does not make sense at all,” Esguerra said.

The decision was concurred in by two other associate justices: Associate Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, now retired, and Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, the current Ombudsman appointed by President Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III.

“Media should not be pawns of the prosecution (panel) and erroneously connect the two because it is totally absurd to promise a ‘gift’ in advance of a favorable decision,” Esguerra pointed out.