"x x x.
During the proceedings, Bayuga testified that Corona’s salaries from 2002 to 2011 amounted to a total ofP5,872,859.82, with the following breakdown:
Years | Salaries |
2002 | P353,045.00 |
2003 | P485,100.00 |
2004 | P485,100.00 |
2005 | P485,100.00 |
2006 | P485,100.00 |
2007 | P508,248.72 |
2008 | P627,763.20 |
2009 | P645,653.90 |
2010 | P650,447.23 |
2011 | P1,147,301.77 |
Total | P5,872,859.82 |
However, Corona’s salaries plus allowances and other benefits from 2002 to 2011 amounted to a total ofP21,636,781.45.
Bayuga stated that among the allowances and benefits were longevity pay, PERA, representation allowance, transportation allowance, extra ordinary miscellaneous allowance, monthly special allowance, additional cost of living allowance, productivity incentive benefit, clothing allowance, year-end bonus and cash gift loyalty, cash awards, and extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses (EME), as well as emergency economic assistance, anniversary bonus, Christmas cash gifts, additional cash gifts, rice allowance and groceries, among others.
These were presented by the Defense in an effort to explain that Corona supposedly has sufficient lawful income to purchase the real properties under his name, which he either failed to declare in his SALNs or which he declared but nonetheless undervalued.
However, the figures bolster the fact that regardless of how much Corona earned as part of his lawful income as Associate Justice of the SC, said lawful income were not reflected and never declared in his SALNs.
In this connection, not all the benefits and allowances claimed by Corona as part of his lawful income may be used for personal purposes or expenses considering that certain allowances are reimbursable and to be used only for work-related purposes.
According to the 2010 Commission on Audit (COA) Report on salaries and allowances, Corona received P334,615.00 in allowances and an additional P170,967.00 as chairman of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET). Moreover, as Chief Justice, Corona received P291,999.00 for EME, as well as an additional EME of P192,000.00 as PET Chairman, or a total EME of P483,999.00 for 2010 alone.
Contrary to the objective of the Defense, however, Corona cannot use his EME as part of his lawful income. As required under Section 28 of the 2010 General Appropriations Act, EME should only be used for work-related purposes, such as: (a) meetings, seminars and conferences; (b) educational, athletic and cultural activities; (c) subscriptions to professional technical journals and informative magazines, library books and materials; (d) membership in government associations, national professional organizations duly accredited by the Professional Regulations Commission, and in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and (e) other similar expenses not supported by the regular budget allocation.
In fact, COA Circular No. 2006-001 requires that claims for reimbursements of expenses under EME should be supported by receipts and/or other documents evidencing disbursements.
However, as alleged by the Prosecution in a previous request for subpoena, Corona sought to be reimbursed for a meal worth P15,362.37 from Century Tsukiji and a meal worth P132 from McDonald’s, as well as for Christmas gifts worth P100,000.00.
Thus, the Defense is misleading the Impeachment Court by claiming certain allowances and benefits as part of Corona’s lawful income.
Moreover, and more importantly, the evidence presented by the Defense even affirms that Corona did in fact make false declarations in his SALNs, which warrants his removal from office.
It should be emphasized, false declarations are at the core of Article II of the Impeachment Complaint:
II. RESPONDENT COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND/OR BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST WHEN HE FAILED TO DISCLOSE TO THE PUBLIC HIS STATEMENT OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES, AND NET WORTH AS REQUIRED UNDER SEC. 17, ART. XI OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION.xxx2.3. It is also reported that some of the properties of Respondent are not included in his declaration of his assets, liabilities, and net worth, in violation of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act. [Emphasis in the original; underscoring supplied]
To recall, in the course of the presentation of evidence by the Prosecution under Article II of the Impeachment Complaint, Corona’s SALNs were produced and presented before the Impeachment Court. Said SALNs reveal the following assets, liabilities and net worth:
Year | Properties | Cash/ Investments | Total Assets | Liabilities | Net Worth |
2002 | P10,138,000.00 | P4,830,000.00 | P14,968,000.00 | 0 | P14,968,000.00 |
2003 | P14,059,080.00 | P4,300,000.00 | P18,359,080.00 | P11,000,000.00 | P7,359,080.00 |
2004 | P14,059,080.00 | P4,300,000.00 | P18,359,080.00 | P11,000,000.00 | P7,359,080.00 |
2005 | P14,059,080.00 | P4,300,000.00 | P18,359,080.00 | P10,000,000.00 | P8,359,080.00 |
2006 | P14,059,080.00 | P3,500,000.00 | P17,559,080.00 | P8,000,000.00 | P9,559,080.00 |
2007 | P14,059,080.00 | P3,500,000.00 | P17,559,080.00 | P6,500,000.00 | P11,059,080.00 |
2008 | P14,059,080.00 | P3,500,000.00 | P17,559,080.00 | P5,000,000.00 | P12,559,080.00 |
2009 | P14,059,080.00 | P3,500,000.00 | P17,559,080.00 | P3,000,000.00 | P14,559,080.00 |
2010 | P18,438,980.00 | P4,500,000.00 | P22,938,980.00 | 0 | P22,938,980.00 |
Bank documents were produced and presented to show that Corona, as of December 31, 2010, had balances ofP12,024,067.70 under Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) Express Teller Checking Account No. 1445-8030-61 andP19,728,555.39 under Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank) Peso Account Nos. 089121021681 and 089121019593, or a total of P31,752,623.09 in peso-denominated cash deposits.
The following table shows the respective deposits per year under the BPI and PSBank Peso accounts, as well as estimated deposits for the accounts without year-end or ending balances, and the total deposits under said accounts for the relevant years:
Years | Deposits in BPI Peso Account | Deposits in PSBank Peso Accounts | Total Deposits in PSBank/BPI Peso Accounts |
2005 | P149,767.36 | - | P149,767.36 |
2006 | P153,395.12 | - | P153,395.12 |
2007 | P5,069,711.18 | P5,062,705.11 | P10,132,416.29 |
2008 | P1,525,872.87 | P1,065,048.03 | P2,590,920.90 |
2009 | P678,501.83 | P8,500,000.00 | P9,178,501.83 |
2010 | P12,024,067.70 | P19,728,555.39 | P31,752,623.09 |
This is contrary to Corona’s sworn declarations in his SALNs that, as of December 31, 2010, he had only P3,500,000.00 in “Cash and Investments.” Otherwise stated, Corona falsely declared and undervalued the “Cash and Investments” component of his assets in his SALNs, as of December 31, 2010, by at least P28,252,623.09.
The following table further shows a comparative view of the “Cash and Investments” that Corona declared in his SALNs for 2005 to 2010 vis-Ã -vis his cash deposits in BPI and PSBank Peso accounts under his name for the same periods:
Years | SALN Cash Assets Declarations | Total Deposits in PSBank/BPI Peso Accounts | Undeclared Cash Assets |
2005 | P3,300,000.00 | P149,767.36 | (P3,150,232.64) |
2006 | P2,500,000.00 | P153,395.12 | (P2,346,604.88) |
2007 | P2,500,000.00 | P10,132,416.29 | P7,632,416.29 |
2008 | P2,500,000.00 | P2,590,920.90 | (P90,920.90) |
2009 | P2,500,000.00 | P9,178,501.83 | P6,678,501.83 |
2010 | P3,500,000.00 | P31,752,623.09 | P28,252,623.09 |
As previously noted, the underdeclaration of P28,252,623.09, as of December 31, 2010, is not yet a final figure since Corona’s PSBank US Dollar accounts, which were confirmed to be existing accounts, have not yet been produced and presented before the Impeachment Court. Thus, said amount will most probably increase as said accounts are produced and presented.
In addition, as shown by the recently-disclosed PSBank Peso Account No. 089-101005094 with an apparent balance upon closure amounting to P17,270,654.97, the underdeclaration would be at least P49,681,240.39 depending on the other accounts to be produced, the actual year-end balance of the BPI account as of December 31, 2011 and the declarations he will make in his SALN for 2011 (which will be filed on or before April 30, 2012):
Years | Deposits in BPI Peso Account | Deposits in PSBank Peso Accounts | Total Deposits in PSBank/BPI Peso Accounts |
2011 | P12,024,067.70 | P37,657,172.69 | P49,681,240.39 |
The presentation of evidence on his 2011 bank accounts is relevant considering that it will establish how much “Cash and Investments” Corona had in 2010 and is indicative of the truthfulness of his SALN for 2010 (which goes into the allegations under Article II and paragraph 2.3 of the Impeachment Complaint).
Relevance is defined in Section 4, Rule 128 of the Rules of Court as follows:
Section 4. Relevancy; collateral matters. — Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. (4a) [Emphasis supplied]
A fact in issue in the impeachment proceedings is whether Corona disclosed all his assets as of 31 December 2010 in his SALN for that year. Evidence indicating that Corona opened an account on 29 June 2011 with an opening balance of P17,000,000.00 and with an apparent closing balance of P17,270,654.97 is relevant because it tends to establish by more than a reasonable degree that Corona had more cash assets as of 31 December 2010 than the P3,500,000.00 the disclosed in his SALN. Considering his lawful income, he could not have lawfully accumulated P17,000,000.00 within the period of January to June 2011. Thus, the same must have come from existing undeclared assets as of December 2010.
This is supported by the Alpha List submitted by the SC to the BIR from 2006 to 2010, which contains the following information:
Year | Gross Income | Tax Withheld |
2006 | 465,597.00 | 109,706.60 |
2007 | 488,156.57 | 117,399.31 |
2008 | 604,388.46 | 154,057.75 |
2009 | 621,528.62 | 155,556.20 |
2010 | 657,755.57 | 176,577.32 |
Totals | P2,837,426.22 | P713,297.18 |
Considering Corona’s lawful income, he could not have lawfully accumulated P17,000,000.00 within the period of January to June 2011 – notwithstanding the fact that Corona’s salaries plus allowances and other benefits from 2002 to 2011 amounted to a total of P21,636,781.45 (which amount is even misleading since certain allowances cannot be claimed as part of lawful income). Thus, the same must have come from existing undeclared assets as of December 2010.
The burden of evidence now shifts to Corona to prove otherwise.
Ruling case law demands that SALNs must be accomplished as truthfully, as detailed and as accurately as possible since it serves as the basis of the government and the people in monitoring the income and lifestyle of officials and employees in the government in compliance with the Constitutional policy to eradicate corruption, promote transparency in government and ensure that all government employees and officials lead just and modest lives. [Flores vs. Montemayor, G.R. No. 170146, August 25, 2010)]
Further, Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) requires SALNs to be under oath, which means that a truthful declaration and information of matters stated therein are inherent in the disclosure requirements. Otherwise, there is no true and full disclosure as intended by law.
Thus, false entries in SALNs can be made the basis of prosecutions for Falsification under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. [Galeos vs. People of the Philippines and Ong vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 174730-37 and 174845-52, February 9, 2011]
Corona’s legal obligation to file his SALNs and make only truthful declarations therein are embodied in the following provisions of law:
- Section 7 of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) provides that very public officer, within thirty (30) days after assuming office, thereafter, on or before the fifteenth day of April following the close of every calendar year, as well as upon the expiration of his term of office, or upon his resignation or separation from office, shall prepare and file with the office of the corresponding Department Head, or in the case of a Head of department or Chief of an independent office, with the Office of the President, a true, detailed sworn statement of assets and liabilities, including a statement of the amounts and sources of his income, the amounts of his personal and family expenses and the amount of income taxes paid for the next preceding calendar year.
- Section 8 of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees provides that public officials and employees have an obligation to accomplish and submit declarations under oath of, and the public has the right to know, their assets, liabilities, net worth and financial and business interests including those of their spouses and of unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households. The declarations should include information on: (a) real property, its improvements, acquisition costs, assessed value and current fair market value; (b) personal property and acquisition cost; (c) all other assets such as investments, cash on hand or in banks, stocks, bonds, and the like; (d) liabilities; and (e) all business interests and financial connections.
Although Corona appeared to have complied with said legal obligation by filing his SALNs, as revealed by the bank documents showing the year-end balances of his BPI and PSBank Peso accounts, the sworn declarations, particularly with respect to his “Cash and Investments”, are absolutely false since they are much less than the figures stated in the bank documents. In fact, with the production and presentation of additional bank documents, the discrepancy and undervaluation has and will become greater.
Aside from Corona’s bank accounts, it was also previously sown that in Corona’s 2010 SALN, Corona declared his penthouse condominium suite at Bellagio I to be worth P6.8 Million. He also indicated that purchased through installment. However, in the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Megaworld and Corona and his wife (dated December 16, 2009), the value of the property was P14.5 Million, as fully paid.
It is further clear that aside from the Bellagio I property, Corona undervalued three (3) other properties, which were all acquired when he was Associate Justice:
Property | Year Acquired | Based on SALN | Based on Deed of Sale |
La Vista | 2003 | P3 Million | P16 Million |
Burgundy Plaza | 2003 | P921,000.00 | P2.5 Million |
Bonifacio Ridge | 2005 | P2.4 Million | P9.1 Million |
Bellagio I | 2009 | P6.8 Million | P14.5 Million |
Accordingly, these false declarations in his SALNs lead to the conclusion that Corona accumulated wealth that is grossly and manifestly disproportionate to his lawful income. Thus, Corona is guilty of culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust, and should be removed from the privilege of holding public office and prohibited from serving in any other public office in the future.
SECOND, the testimony of Demetrio Vicente highlighted the inconsistency of the Defense on the reckoning point of declarations of real properties in Corona’s SALNs
In his testimony, Vicente said he paid P509,985.00 to Cristina Corona for seven (7) properties located in Marikina City. However, he claims that he has not yet transferred the titles to his name since he supposedly ran out of money to pay the purported transfer fees after he built a house in the property.
However, as previously pointed out by Senator-Judge Recto (Days 10 and 11), there is an apparent inconsistency and conflicting positions on the part of the Defense regarding the reckoning point for declaration of properties in Corona’s SALNs. He noted that the Defense justified the non-inclusion of the Columns property in Corona’s SALNs on the ground that the Coronas have not yet supposedly taken possession of said property and ownership thereof has not yet arisen. However, he also noted that the Defense justifies the non-inclusion of the Marikina property in Corona’s SALNs on the ground that there is supposedly a Deed of Sale dated 26 July 1990 between Cristina Corona and Demetrio Vicente, thus effectively transferring ownership of said Marikina property to the buyer thereof.
To recall, with respect to the Columns property, ownership already passed on to the Coronas as early as 2004 (i.e., Deed of Absolute Sale was dated 01 October 2004 and the Condominium Certificate of Title No. 85716 was issued on 03 November 2004). Thus, Corona should have declared the condominium in his SALN for 2005, which he did not. To reiterate, the execution of the deed of sale conveys ownership of real property. Acceptance only conveys possession of thereof.
In fact, the Defense recognized the very same legal principle (i.e., that a deed of sale conveys ownership of the a property) with respect to the Marikina property when it claimed that the Corona is no longer required to declare said property owing to the purported Deed of Sale dated 26 July 1990 that supposedly transferred ownership from Cristina Corona to a certain Demetrio Vicente.
Stated otherwise, with respect to the Columns property, the Defense is of the position that since there is no acceptance yet of said property on the part of Corona, there is no legal obligation to declare and/or disclose the same in his SALNs. However, this is without legal basis since the issue of possession is irrelevant for purposes of the disclosure requirements under the law considering that it is the deed of sale that conveys ownership of the property and not the actual possession thereof. As the records would bear, since ownership already passed on to the Coronas as early as 2004, Corona should have declared the Columns property in the SALN immediately succeeding its acquisition (i.e., SALN for 2005), regardless of whether said property was already accepted or not.
These inconsistencies and conflicting positions with respect to the Marikina property and the Columns property were again emphasized by Senator-Judge Recto in today’s proceedings. As required under law and prevailing jurisprudence, Corona should have declared the Columns property in the SALN immediately succeeding its acquisition, regardless of whether said property was already accepted or not.
Flores vs. Montemayor, supra, is instructive on this score:
Montemayor’s argument that he did not deliberately omit to declare the 2001 Ford Expedition in his 2001 [Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities] and the 1997 Toyota Land Cruiser in his 2001 and 2002 SSAL fails to persuade us. Even if a motor vehicle was acquired through chattel mortgage, it is a government employee’s ethical and legal obligation to declare and include the same in his SSAL.Montemayor cannot wiggle his way out of the mess he has himself created since he knows for a fact that every asset acquired by a civil servant must be declared in the SSAL. The law requires that the SSAL be accomplished truthfully and in detail without distinction as to how the property was acquired. Montemayor, therefore, cannot escape liability by arguing that the ownership of the 2001 Ford Expedition has not yet passed to him on the basis of a lame excuse that the said vehicle was acquired only on installment basis sometime on July 3, 2001. [Emphasis supplied]
Further, it is interesting to note that Vicente’s middle name is Coronado. He is, thus, Corona’s second cousin – Vicente’s mother and Corona’s mother are cousins. In fact, Corona’s mother is Vicente’s godmother in his wedding. This raises the suspicion that Vicente is merely a dummy of the Coronas.
Moreover, the highly suspicious and questionable circumstances surrounding the alleged sale of the property is highlighted and bolstered by the fact that the alleged notary public that notarized the Deed of Sale, a certain Beatriz Montoya, is not a licensed notary public for Makati City, as certified by RTC Makati City. Thus, the Deed of Sale is clearly a falsified document.
In this regard, public documents – such as a Deed of Absolute Sale – may be falsified through any of the means proscribed under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Article 172(1) thereof.
Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastical minister. – The penalty of prisión mayor and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts:1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric;2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate;3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them;4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;5. Altering true dates;6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning;7. Issuing in authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no such original exists, or including in such copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original; or8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book.The same penalty shall be imposed upon any ecclesiastical minister who shall commit any of the offenses enumerated in the preceding paragraphs of this article, with respect to any record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the civil status of persons. [Emphasis supplied]
Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
Art. 172. Falsification by Private Individuals and Use of Falsified Documents. – The penalty of prision correctional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon:1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the next preceding article in any public or official document or letter of exchange or any other kind of commercial document;2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with the intent to cause such damage, shall in any private document commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated in the next preceding article.Any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in any judicial proceeding or to the damage of another or who, with the intent to cause such damage, shall use any of the false documents embraced in the next preceding article or in any of the foregoing subdivisions of this article, shall be punished by the penalty next lower in degree. [Emphasis supplied]
The elements of falsification by a private individual of a public document (such as a Deed of Absolute Sale) are as follows:
a. That the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did not take advantage of his official position;b. That he committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171; andc. That the falsification was committed in a public or official or commercial document. [Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book Two, p. 219]
Further, in falsification committed by causing it to appear that an individual participated in an act when he did not in fact so participate, as in this case, the following elements must concur:
a. That the offender caused it to appear in a document that a person or persons participated in an act or a proceeding; andb. That such person or persons did not in fact so participate in the act or proceeding. [Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book Two, p. 207]
In addition, the following acts are deemed punishable under Section 1, Rule XII of A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC (2004 Rules on Notarial Practice):
SECTION 1. Punishable Acts. - The Executive Judge shall cause the prosecution of any person who:(a) knowingly acts or otherwise impersonates a notary public;(b) knowingly obtains, conceals, defaces, or destroys the seal, notarial register, or official records of a notary public; and(c) knowingly solicits, coerces, or in any way influences a notary public to commit official misconduct. [Emphasis supplied]
Considering that Beatriz Montoya is not a licensed notary public for Makati City, the Impeachment Court should disregard any and all testimonies about the execution of the Deed of Sale since it was made to appear that she notarized said document when in fact no person under said name has been licensed to lawfully do so.
This all the more highlights the highly suspicious and questionable circumstances surrounding the alleged sale of the Marikina property.
x x x."
