THE Senate, sitting as impeachment court, would “not accept” as evidence against impeached Chief Justice Renato Corona his supposed secret dollar deposit with Philippine Savings Bank if it is proven that the photocopies of his dollar bank documents that the House prosecution panel had submitted to senator-judges are fake.

Likewise, the House prosecutors would be subjected to disciplinary action if is proven that they knew beforehand that the documents they had attached to their pleading last Feb.2 before the impeachment court -- in compelling the PS Bank to submit the original copies of Corona’s dollar bank documents  -- were “altered.”

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, the impeachment court presiding officer, stressed these points when Sen. Joker Arroyo asked what would be the consequences if the impeachment court finds out that Corona’s dollar bank papers were “falsified.”

Annabel Tiongson, the PS Bank Katipunan branch manager, Monday night testified that the supposed dollar bank documents of Corona – supposedly reflecting $700,000 deposit -- that the prosecution panel had attached to their motion are fake.

“If it is a forgery, what happens now? We spent so much time explaining what? How can we proceed if it is a forgery? A forgery is a forgery unless you change the whole thing. We have branched out into asking the bank to produce the original document. But how can we do that when the original and the false document are different?” Arroyo asked.

To which Enrile replied: “If this document is found to be falsified in some respect then we’ll determine whether the falsification is substantial enough to exclude this evidence in this case and make accountable those responsible for that alterations.” 

“It will be the burden of the prosecution why they requested these documents in the face of an altered document. At that point, the court would determine whether disciplinary measures are (to be) imposed on those responsible for the alterations,” Enrile said.

The Senate chief said that the prosecution panel is “bound” by the testimony of all its witnesses including the authenticity of documents the prosecutors would present to justify their accusations against Corona.

“They can’t pass the buck to this court because in our system of adversarial proceedings it is the duty of the parties seeking the assistance of this court to make sure that the request is valid,” he added.

Enrile stressed this point to lead prosecutor, Rep.Niel Tupas Jr., after the latter tried to reason out why they attached Corona’s dollar bank account documents in their motion.  “You are bound by it. If you (Tupas) read the rules of evidence you will agree with me that is the rule. The presenting lawyer of the witness must be bound by his or her admissions and statements,” he said.

Tupas agreed with Enrile’s position. “I submit to the wisdom of the presiding officer.” But Enrile retorted: “It is not my wisdom. That is the rule. If you study law very well that is the rule.”

“I’m not accusing anybody. But I think the requesting party knew very well that the source of the material was of questionable nature. In fact, the mere knowledge that the source was anonymous should have given the prosecution enough caution to scrutinize the source before they present it to this court as the basis for compulsory process,” Enrile said.

The Senate chief said that any court, whether it is a court dealing with or a special court like the impeachment court, “must give due course and presume the good faith of the requesting party with the knowledge that it exercises necessary caution (in seeking the issuance of any subpoena.”

Corona’s lead defense counsel, retired Justice Serafin Cuevas, noted that the mere order to produce documents does not mean (the documents are) evidence for the prosecution. To which Enrile agreed. “That is correct. The compulsory process simply means bring anything and when presented it may be objected to if there is a ground to object.”

“This is elementary to any lawyer in a court room. I do not have to educate lawyers here. I feel ashamed to educate lawyers here. The matter is academic. The presiding officer has already ruled that and stand by the subpoena he issued. And he feels fully responsible for it,” Enrile said.