Corona heirs appeal subpoena on bank records

MANILA, Philippines — Cristina Corona, the wife of the late Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona, has appealed to the Sandiganbayan to reconsider its resolution allowing the Office of the Ombudsman to scrutinize her and her husband's bank accounts in connection with their P130.59-million civil forfeiture case.

In a 17-page motion for reconsideration filed before the anti-graft court's Second Division, Corona's heirs, Cristina and their three children, Ma. Carla Beatrice C. Castillo, Francis R. Corona and Charina C. Salgado, said the court erred in its October 23 ruling granting the appeal of the ombudsman to reinstate the subpoenas on the couple's peso and dollar bank accounts, which the court had quashed in an earlier ruling.

“Clearly, since the requested subpoenae are unreasonable and oppressive with respect to the subpoenaed officials and their banks, this Honorable Court, through its earlier Resolution dated 28 April 2016, correctly quashed the subpoenae it previously issued to petitioner's (prosecution) prospective witnesses,” the appeal of Mrs. Corona and her children read.

Coronas maintained that the confidentiality of bank records is guaranteed not only under Republic Act 1405 or the Bank Secrecy Law but also under RA 6426 or the Foreign Currency Deposit Act.

The Coronas said RA 6426 is clear in stating that that there is only a single exception to the secrecy of foreign currency deposits and that is when there is a written permission from the depositor for his or her bank records' disclosure.

The Coronas said that since there is no permission from the late chief justice or his spouse for the presentation of their bank records, “neither the petitioner nor this Honorable Court has the authority to inquire into said deposits, or to compel any witness to produce documents relating thereto.”

The Coronas said the presentation of the bank transaction records without their permission will also expose the bank officials to criminal liabilities and the banks that they are representing, to administrative sanctions.

Mrs. Corona also maintained that the civil case against her and her late husband was a product of the illegal acts of the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Internal Revenue under the previous administration, of accessing their bank records without their knowledge and permission.

Mrs. Corona said such act was tantamount to violation of their constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

“Petitioner's resort to the subject request for subpoenae is therefore an obvious subterfuge to cure the fatality of its evidence – and its case – against respondents. This should not be countenanced by this Honorable Court,” the Coronas' appeal read.

The forfeiture case against the Corona couple, filed by the ombudsman in March 2014, was an offshoot of an impeach trial against Mr. Corona over his alleged failure to declare several assets, including real estate properties, in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth for 2001 to 2011.

It was earlier alleged that Mr. Corona emptied several of his bank accounts before an impeachment case was filed against him before the House of Representatives in December 2011.

In May 2012, the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, voted 20-3 in favor of Corona's conviction for betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution over his supposed SALN violations. His conviction cause his removal from the SC.

Corona passed away on April 29, 2016 due to cardiac arrest after years of battling diabetes.

It can be remembered that on Jan. 18, 2016, the Second Division issued several subpoenas to compel the production of bank transaction records of the Corona couple, including those pertaining to an account under the name of the late SC chief justice with German financial company Deutsche Bank AG.

Aside from the bank documents, also subpoenaed were several bank representatives including Enrico Cruz and Celia Orbeta of Deutsche Bank AG Manila, Anthony Chua of Allied Banking Corporation, Francisco Burgos and Maybelen Villareal of Land Bank of the Philippines, and Pascual Garcia of the Philippine Savings Bank.

They were directed to appear before the ombudsman's Office of the Special Prosecutor “for a conference and to testify” on the subpoenaed bank documents.

The Second Division, however, quashed the subpoena in its April 28, 2016 resolution, saying that the court must “maintain an attitude of impartiality to the highest level” and must not assist the prosecution in building up its case.

The Second Division, however, changed its mind for the second time and reinstated the subpoenas on October 23, giving weight on the prosecution's argument that the presentation of the Corona couple's bank records would not violate Republic Act 1405 or the Bank Secrecy Law, as the bank accounts are subjects of the pending case.

Furthermore, the court said RA 6770 or the Ombudsman Act of 1989 also grants the agency including its investigators and prosecutors, the authority to issue subpoena “or make application for issuance of subpoena before the Sandiganbayan.”