Senator-judges to decide impeach trial on 'quantum of evidence'

MANILA, Philippines - Senators acting as judges in the impeachment trial against Chief Justice Renato Corona will decide on the case based on “quantum of evidence” rather than on “guilt beyond reasonable doubt,” Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile said yesterday.

“We are going to decide this case on the basis of the quantum of evidence that we think is best to determine whether he is guilty or not guilty, not beyond reasonable doubt because this is not a criminal case,” Enrile said on Day 23 of the impeachment trial of Corona. 

“It is akin to a criminal case but not really a criminal case. That is why I made that ruling so let it remain as a ruling of the court,” he said.

Later in the trial, Enrile explained that based on his readings, “quantum of evidence” could mean “overwhelming preponderance of evidence.”

“It would seem that it is overwhelming preponderance of evidence but there are indications that clear and convincing evidence is enough,” Enrile said.

But he stressed senator-judges would still have to decide in a caucus on what type of evidence should be considered by the court.

Enrile made the statement shortly after lead defense lawyer Serafin Cuevas sought clarification on when a testimony should be considered “hearsay” in an impeachment case.

“We must remember that we are not trying a criminal case. We are trying an impeachment case although there is a penalty. The only penalty is not loss of freedom or infliction of an economic burden but the removal of the respondent from his position and his disqualification,” Enrile said.

Cuevas has been invoking the hearsay rule to blast witnesses who have no direct knowledge of the circumstances on which their testimonies are based.

Enrile stressed that the hearsay rule contained in the Rules of Evidence “(does) not apply strictly in impeachment cases as far as I can remember from what I read about the experience of the United States in impeachment cases.”

Enrile said books by Charles Black and Raoul Berger on impeachment cases in the US have given him an idea on how to apply the hearsay rule.

“These two books will tell you that that hearsay rule is not adhered to strictly in impeachment cases,” the Senate President said.

“It is true that in the strictly criminal case the hearsay rule is very strictly adhered to as a rule of evidence but not in an impeachment case, that is why I made a distinction between the truth and falsity of what was related by Justice (Maria Lourdes) Sereno in her dissenting opinion,” Enrile said.

“What the witness now said based on what was contained on the information being presented on the basis of the dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno. To that extent and to the extent of the dissenting opinion let it stay as a part of the testimony of the witness. So ordered,” Enrile added.

“I am heavily thankful for the pronouncement made by the honorable presiding justice... I am searching in vain for a ruling on the rule of procedure insofar as the impeachment case is concerned, relative to hearsay evidence,” Cuevas said after cross-examining witness Justice Secretary Leila de Lima.

The defense panel, meanwhile, expressed belief that the Senate would decide immediately on which to use as basis for deciding on Corona’s case.

“We can’t tell what quantum of evidence to use because both parties have been asked to submit memoranda on which should apply - proof beyond reasonable doubt or substantial evidence or preponderance of evidence,” said lawyer Karen Jimeno, one of the defense spokespersons.

Another defense lawyer Tranquil Salvador III said they respect the opinion of the Senate President.

“We look at that as a personal opinion of the Senate President, there are 23 senators and they may have different opinions,” Salvador added.

He recalled that the lead prosecutor himself, Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas, had claimed that they could prove “beyond reasonable doubt” Corona’s failure to declare all his wealth in his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN).

“This only proved that they recognized ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’,” Salvador said.