#CJTrialWatch: List of at least 93 witnesses and documentary evidence to be presented by the Prosecution

Lead prosecutor Rep. Niel Tupas Jr. of Iloilo said the prosecution panel needs the more than 100 witnesses it intends to call to prove its case against Corona.

“The list of witnesses and documents contained in our compliance filed with the Senate should be taken without manifestation that we will present a very strong, solid case against the Chief Justice within a reasonable period of time,” he said.

Among the witnesses are “two Supreme Court justices, Jose Midas Marquez, spokesman of the high court, five journalists, doctors of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, who the prosecution plans to call when its tackles Article of Impeachment No. 7, which deals with Corona’s alleged partiality in issuing a temporary restraining order against the inclusion of Arroyo and her husband, Jose Miguel, in a travel watch list.”

Tranquil Salvador III, one of the spokespersons of the defense panel, “said it is the prosecution panel’s own lookout if they proceed with their plan of presenting all the witnesses they listed and revealed during a press conference last Friday.”

According to Salvador, there are many complications that could arise once they start asking for subpoenas for these people.

“Our concern is that those witnesses may not be competent to testify. Do they have relevant information or direct connections to the case?” Salvador said.

According to Salvador, what the prosecution panel may be trying to achieve with its disclosure of its list of witnesses last Friday is to sway public opinion, just like what they have been doing since the start of the trial.

“They are playing up to the public. They probably want to tell the public ‘look at how many witnesses we have, support our cause now.’ But with all modesty, we are not worried about the numbers,” Salvador said.

“Calling the Justices as witnesses will make them testify not only for or against the Chief Justice but also against each other,” Lagman said. “It would also pierce and violate the time-honored confidentiality of the deliberation of the Justices in the disposition of cases.”

WITNESSES TO BE PRESENTED

We intend to present the following witnesses:

1.     Raissa Robles, who will testify among others on the close personal relationship between Corona and GMA and other allegations contained in theVerified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

2.     Criselda Yabes, who will testify among others on the close personal relationship between Corona and GMA and other allegations contained in theVerified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

3.     Marites Vitug, who will testify among others on the close personal relationship between Corona and GMA, the research she has on the Supreme Court inner processes and other allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

4.     Justice Secretary Leila de Lima – who will testify, among others: (1) That various criminal cases have been filed against GMA and FG; (2) That GMA intends to travel for other reasons aside from health (3) That service of the TRO to the Department of Justice was attempted to be made before 6 p.m. on 15 November 2011; (4) That petitioners attempted to leave the country on November 15, 2011; (5) On the allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

5.     Principal Physician of former President Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo, Dr. Juliet Gopez-Cervantes, and her surgeon, Dr. Mario Ver – who will attest to GMA’s continuing recovery and her positive prognosis, especially after 6 to 8 months and that there is no medical emergency warranting an immediate flight.

6.     Supreme Court Process Server – who will testify, among others: (1) On the working hours of the Supreme Court; (2) that the Temporary Restraining Order was filed beyond working hours.

7.     Supreme Court Process Cashier – who will testify, among others: (1) On the working hours of the Supreme Court; (2) that the conditions set were submitted beyond working hours.

8.     Ina Reformina and a Mediaman/Journalist – who will testify, among others: (1) That the TRO allowing GMA to leave the country was issued before 6 p.m. on 15 November 2011; (2) That service of the TRO to the Department of Justice was attempted to be made before 6 p.m. on 15 November 2011; (3) That Compliance with TRO requirements, such as the posting of the bond, among others, was made after 6 p.m. on 15 November 2011; (4) Statements made by the Public Information Office of the Supreme Court;  (5) On the allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

9.     Deputy Clerk of Court – who will testify, among others: (1) That respondent Corona consolidated the two (2) cases involving Arroyo and her husband Mike in order to ensure the hurried issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011; (2) That the hurried issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 by respondent Corona was made in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice; (3) That such issuance is a tyrannical abuse of power, an act of favoritism and an inexcusably negligent act amounting to a betrayal of public trust; (4) On the allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

10.  Enriqueta Vidal, Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court En Banc – who will testify, among others: (1) that Respondent Corona made handwritten corrections on the typewritten draft Resolution Justice Velasco with the instruction that the Chief Justice’s version is to be immediately promulgated; (2) Suppress the dissent of Justice Sereno; and (3)On the allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

11.  Assigned Process Server or Sheriff – who will testify, among others: (1) That respondent Corona in order to immediately effect the TRO extended the office hours, asked him to do overtime and to immediately serve the Notices to the Department of Justice and the Office of the Solicitor General;

12.  Araceli C. Bayuga, SC Chief Judicial Officer – who will testify, among others: (1) that respondent Corona in order to immediately effect the TRO extended the office hours, asked them to facilitate the payment of the bond to ensure compliance; (2) the time and manner of payment (3) the time that they informed the Office of the Clerk of Court of the payment of the bond.

13.  “Juliet” of the Office of the Clerk of Court – that it was only at 8:55am of November 16, one day after GMA attempted  to leave, that they received information of the payment of the Bond.

14.  Jay Francis P. Baltazar, Notary Public of Magallanes, Makati City (Hostile Witness) –  will testify as to the time and manner that the Special Power of Attorney made in favor of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo was notarized.

15.  Assigned Cashier to Receive Payment – who will testify, among others: (1) That respondent Corona in order to immediately effect the TRO asked them to receive the payment of bond;  (2) The other circumstances surrounding the payment of the money.

16.  Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno – who will testify, among others: (1) That the hurried issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 by respondent Corona in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice is a tyrannical abuse of power, an act of favoritism and an inexcusably negligent act amounting to a betrayal of public trust. This was made possible through respondent’s individual acts of: (i) Consolidating the two (2) cases involving Arroyo and her husband Mike; (ii) Facilitating and expediting, as administrative head of the Supreme Court, the issuance and implementation of the TRO issued in favor of Arroyo (i.e. allowing the extension of the office hours of the Supreme Court, among others); (iii) Distorting the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court amounted to a betrayal of public trust; (iv) Suppressing the promulgation of the dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno which was submitted on 2 December 2011 but was promulgated only on 13 December 2011; and (v)  Providing the Supreme Court spokesman with misleading information; and (2) On the allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

17.  Justice Jose Midas P Marquez (Hostile Witness) – who will testify, among others: (1) That the hurried issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 by respondent Corona in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice is a tyrannical abuse of power, an act of favoritism and an inexcusably negligent act amounting to a betrayal of public trust. This was made possible through respondent’s individual acts of: (i) Consolidating the two (2) cases involving Arroyo and her husband Mike; (ii) Facilitating and expediting, as administrative head of the Supreme Court, the issuance and implementation of the TRO issued in favor of Arroyo (i.e. allowing the extension of the office hours of the Supreme Court, among others); (iii) Distorting the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court amounted to a betrayal of public trust; (iv) Suppressing the promulgation of the dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno which was submitted on 2 December 2011 but was promulgated only on 13 December 2011; and (v)  Providing the Supreme Court spokesman with misleading information; and (2) On the allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

18.  Justice  Presibetero J. Velasco, Jr. (Hostile Witness) – who will testify, among others: (1) That the hurried issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 by respondent Corona in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice is a tyrannical abuse of power, an act of favoritism and an inexcusably negligent act amounting to a betrayal of public trust. This was made possible through respondent’s individual acts of: (i) Consolidating the two (2) cases involving Arroyo and her husband Mike; (ii) Facilitating and expediting, as administrative head of the Supreme Court, the issuance and implementation of the TRO issued in favor of Arroyo (i.e. allowing the extension of the office hours of the Supreme Court, among others); (iii) Distorting the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court amounted to a betrayal of public trust; (iv) Suppressing the promulgation of the dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno which was submitted on 2 December 2011 but was promulgated only on 13 December 2011; and (v)  Providing the Supreme Court spokesman with misleading information; (2) that Respondent Corona made handwritten corrections on the typewritten draft Resolution Justice Velasco with the instruction that the Chief Justice’s version is to be immediately promulgated; and (3) On the allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case. (2) On the allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

List of Witnesses Names Corona Impeachment

Among the witnesses are two Supreme Court justices, Jose Midas Marquez, spokesman of the high court, five journalists, doctors of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, who the prosecution plans to call when its tackles Article of Impeachment No. 7, which deals with Corona’s alleged partiality in issuing a temporary restraining order against the inclusion of Arroyo and her husband, Jose Miguel, in a travel watch list.

In an Interaksyon report, Aurora Representative Juan Edgardo Angara, one of the prosecution’s spokesmen, broke down the number of witnesses for each article of impeachment:

1) Partiality and subservience in cases involving the Arroyo administration from the time he was appointed as associate justice to the time of his midnight appointment as chief justice — six witnesses

2) Failure to disclose to the public his statements of assets and liabilities and networth as required under Section 17, Artcle XI of the 1987 Constitution — 13 witnesses

3) Failure to meet and observe the stringent standards under the Constitution that require a member of the judiciary to be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence by allowing the Supreme Court to act on mere letters filed by a counsel which caused the issuance of flip-flopping decisions in final and executory cases; in creating an excessive entanglement with Mrs. Arroyo through her appointment of his wife to office; and in discussing with litigants cases pending in the Supreme Court — 26 witnesses)

4) Blatant disregard of the principle of separation of powers by issuing a status quo ante order against the House of Representatives in the case concerning the impeachment of then Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez — seven witnesses

5) Wanton arbitrariness and partiality in consistently disregarding the principle of res judicata, or resurrecting decided cases, and in deciding in favor of gerrymandering in the cases involving the 16 newly created cities, and the promotion of Dinagat Island into a province — eight witnesses
6)Arrogating unto himself, and to a committee he created, the authority and jurisdiction to improperly investigate an alleged erring member of the Supreme Court for the purpose of exculpating him — six witnesses

7) Partiality in granting a temporary restraining order in favor of Arroyo and her husband Jose Miguel Arroyo in order to give them an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice, and in distorting the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court’s own TRO — 22 witnesses

8. Failure and refusal to account for the Judiciary Development Fund and Special Allowance for the Judiciary collections — five witnesses

Final List of Witnesses in Corona Impeachment Trial

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO BE PRESENTED
Description:  Order of consolidation of cases or Minutes of En Banc Session where such consolidation was allowed
Purpose: To show, among others, that:

(1)  respondent Corona consolidated the two (2) cases involving Arroyo and her husband Mike in order to ensure the hurried issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011;

(2)  the hurried issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 by respondent Corona was made in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice; and

(3)  such issuance is a tyrannical abuse of power, an act of bias and prejudice and an inexcusably negligent act amounting to a betrayal of public trust.

• Travel Tickets of Respondent Corona on November 2011
• To show the whereabouts of Corona during November 2011 and to explain that he hurried back to the Supreme Court for the issuance of the TRO
• Bureau of Immigration Entry and Exit of Respondent Corona
• To show the whereabouts of Corona during November 2011 and to explain that he hurried back to the Supreme Court for the issuance of the TRO
• Leave of Absence of Respondent Corona
• To show the whereabouts of Corona during November 2011 and to explain that he hurried back to the Supreme Court for the issuance of the TRO

Description: Resolution dated 15 November 2011,  as published

Purpose: To show, among others, that:

(1)  respondent Corona rushed the issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice. This is a tyrannical abuse of power, an act of favoritism and an inexcusably negligent act amounting to a betrayal of public trust.

Description: Minutes of En Banc Sessions dated 18th, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, and 29th of November 2011

Special Power of Attorney dated 15 November 2011 submitted by the Arroyos in favor of Atty. Ferdinand Topacio appointing him “to produce summons or receive documentary evidence.”
Purpose:To show, among others, that:

(1)  Arroyo and her husband Mike failed to comply with the Resolution dated 15 November 2011; and

(2)  the issuance of the TRO was made prior to the submission of the SPA, a condition precedent to the issuance of the TRO.

Description:Receipt issued by the Supreme Court for the Two Million Pesos Cash Bond of the Arroyos

Purpose:To show, among others, that the issuance of the TRO was made prior to the completion of the conditions precedent to the issuance of the TRO.
Affidavit from Media who witnessed the following:

i.     Issuance of the TRO before 6 p.m.

 

ii.     Service of the TRO to the Department of Justice before 6 p.m.

 

iii.     Compliance with TRO requirements after 6 p.m.

Purpose: To show, among others, that:

(1)   the issuance of the TRO was made before 6 p.m.;

(2)   the service of the TRO to the Department of Justice was made before 6 p.m.;

(3)   compliance with the requirements for the issuance of the TRO was made after 6 p.m.;

(4)   respondent Corona facilitated and expedited, as administrative head of the Supreme Court, the issuance and implementation of the TRO issued in favor of Arroyo (i.e. allowing the extension of the office hours of the Supreme Court, among others); and

(5)   respondent Corona hurried the issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice.

Description:Video of Atty. Midas Marquez announcing on 18 November 2011 that TRO is in full force and effect and, as far as the SC is concerned, petitioners can travel out of the country immediately.
Purpose:To show, among others, that:

(1) respondent Corona provided the Supreme Court spokesman with misleading information;

(2)  respondent Corona distorted the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court amounted to a betrayal of public trust; and

(3) respondent Corona hurried the issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution.

Description: Typed-written draft of Justice Velasco referring to the first three sentences of the first paragraph of the clarificatory Resolution subject of the En Banc meeting on 18 November 2011. (This was also referred to in the Letter dated 24 November 2011 of Justice Carpio)
Purpose:To show, among others, that:

(1)  respondent Corona distorted the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court; and

(2)  respondent Corona hurried the issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice.
Justice Carpio’s Modifications of Justice Velasco’s Typed-written draft

Description:Respondent Corona’s handwritten corrections on the typewritten draft Resolution of Justice Velasco with the instruction that the Chief Justice’s version is to be immediately promulgated.

Letter dated 24 November 2011 of Justice Carpio

Resolution dated 22 November 2011, as published on 29 November 2011

Video of Atty. Midas Marquez announcing on 29 November 2011 that the Supreme Court has always considered the TRO to have not been suspended, and that this ruling was clarified by a 9-4 vote.
Purpose: To show, among others, that:

(1)  respondent Corona provided the Supreme Court spokesman with misleading information;

(2)  respondent Corona distorted the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court; and

(3)  respondent Corona hurried the issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice.
Memorandum dated 05 December 2011 of Clerk of Court Enriqueta E. Vidal for the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices
To show, among others, that:

(1) respondent Corona suppressed the promulgation of the dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno which was submitted on 2 December 2011 but was promulgated only on 13 December 2011; and

(2) respondent Corona hurried the issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice.

Description: Letter dated 06 December 2011 of Justice Sereno to respondent Corona formalizing her request to be apprised of the legal basis for the non-promulgation of her dissenting opinion, unduly depriving her of her constitutional right as an associate justice.

Dissenting Opinion of Justice Sereno in G.R. No. 199034 and 199046 as published on 13 December 2011.
Purpose:To show, among others, that:

(1)  respondent Corona hurried the issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice. This was made possible through respondent Corona’s individual acts of:

a. consolidating the two (2) cases involving Arroyo and her husband Mike;

b. facilitating and expediting, as administrative head of the Supreme Court, the issuance and implementation of the TRO issued in favor of Arroyo (i.e. allowing the extension of the office hours of the Supreme Court, among others);

c. distorting the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court amounted to a betrayal of public trust;

d. suppressing the promulgation of the dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno which was submitted on 2 December 2011 but was promulgated only on 13 December 2011; and

e.  providing the Supreme Court spokesman with misleading information.