Senators question relevance of SC employee’s testimony on Corona's salary

At least two senator-judges in Chief Justice Renato Corona’s impeachment trial on Wednesday questioned the relevance of the testimony of a Supreme Court employee on the chief magistrate’s salaries and benefits to the prosecution’s allegations.

 

Senator Antonio Trillanes IV said the defense panel seems to be “reviving” Article 2.4 of the impeachment complaint on Corona’s alleged ill-gotten wealth, which the Senate earlier struck down, through the testimony of SC disbursement officer Araceli Bayuga.

 

“You are actually presenting evidence to disprove that the bank deposits are not ill-gotten. That’s the only purpose I can think of,” Trillanes told lead defense counsel Serafin Cuevas during the trial.

 

In response, Cuevas told Trillanes that the senator’s statements are just “personal observations.”

 

“That is your personal assessment, but being a defense counsel, we will do every thing do defend chief justice,” the defense lawyer said.

 

Bayuga told the impeachment court on Monday that Corona got P21 million worth of salaries and allowances during his stint at the SC from 2002 to 2011.

 

Earlier, the Senate impeachment court disallowed the prosecution from presenting evidence on Corona’s supposed ill-gotten wealth. 

‘Not the point’

 

Later on during the trial, however, Senator Alan Peter Cayetano supported Trillanes’ views, saying that Bayuga’s testimony seems to be not related to allegations on supposed inaccuracies in Corona’s statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN).

 

“If you are just showing na hindi corrupt at may pinagkunan ng pera, wala namang problema iyon, pero hindi naman po iyan ang dapat niyong patunayan,” Cayetano said.

 

“Even assuming that the chief justice made millions this year or last year or the year before, hindi iyon ang point as of now. Ang point is that kung nadeclare ba sa SALN,” he added.

 

Cuevas, however, said that Bayuga’s testimony is just “preliminary.”

 

“There are other witnesses… This is not the totally of the evidence of the defense,” he said.

 

Bayuga was later on discharged by the impeachment court, but was required to go back on Thursday to answer further questions from the prosecution. — RSJ, GMA News