The prosecution in the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona had better have an AIRTIGHT EXPLANATION on TWO DAMINING REVELATIONS which BELIE their grounds in requesting for a subpoena for his PSBank records.
Otherwise, ALL THE EVIDENCE which had been submitted by the prosecution from the start should first be EXAMINED for both AUTHENTICITY and the LEGALTY of how these were acquired.
Before the trial continues, and the prosecution DELAYS the it again with DENIALS of their stories and/or evidence by their OWN WITNESSES or physical proof.
For those who missed it, PSBank Katipunan branch manager Annabelle Tiongson testified in today’s hearing that the prosecution’s copies of
’s supposed deposits in her branch were "fake documents.” Corona
Tiongson categorically stated that the documents “did not come from our bank. They are not replicas of genuine documents." She said PSBank records are generated by the bank’s computers and have bar codes printed on the pages.
Remember, people, the subpoena issued to PSBank for the records of
’s peso and dollar deposits were BASED on the prosecution’s supposed copies of the documents. Corona
And that subpoena almost led to a CONFRONTATION the Senate and the Supreme Court, following the issuance by the High Tribunal of a temporary restraining against it.
So the prosecution must prove, IMMEDIATELY, that it had not done anything illegal following Tiongson’s testimony.
Mindoro Rep. Reynaldo Umali earlier claimed before the Senate impeachment court that a small lady handed over to him
's PSBank records outside the Senate building last week. Corona
But Senate Majority Floor Leader Vicente Sotto III said a report by the Senate sergeant-at-arms noted that closed-circuit television (CCTV) recordings do not show any little ladies giving anything to Rep. Umali, from the time he arrived at one o’clock up to the time that he boarded his vehicle.
So now, it’s the prosecution’s word against Tiongson’s, who ironically is their own witness.
TAKE NOTE people, Tiongson is a more AUTHORITATIVE and COMPETENT position to speak on the authenticity of her branch’s records than ANYONE among the prosecutors.
As to Umali’s ‘small lady’ claim, the prosecution would have to prove a MAJOR MALFUNCTION or monitoring lapse in the Senate’s CCTV to prove his story.
If they try this alibi, they had better do a rock-solid one since the Senate can call in the best experts anytime to evaluate whatever explanation they’ll give.
Otherwise, video doesn’t lie. I can’t think of any other way for Umali’s story to stand up to Senate, and public, scrutiny. 30
Post a Comment
EVERYBODY IS WELCOME TO EXPRESS THEIR OWN OPINION ON THE ISSUE. But we discourage use of FOUL words.
Please be reminded that this blog is under COMMENT MODERATION, all comments will be reviewed before publishing. We have the right to reject any insolent comment.