THE Second Division of the Sandiganbayan has reversed its 2016 resolution, ordering to open the bank accounts of the late Supreme Court chief justice Renato Corona and his wife, Cristina.
In an Oct. 23 resolution, the Sandiganbayan said the documents were the subject of a forfeiture case against the couple, and that such should not be impeded by the Bank Secrecy Law.
The Office of the Ombudsman is authorized to have access to the Coronas’ bank accounts and records under Republic Act 6770 or the Ombudsman Act.
“There can be no infraction of the policy of secrecy of bank deposits. Bank deposits can be inquired into upon the order of this court if said deposits are the subject of litigation, like in this case,” the resolution read.
The couple were charged with a P130-million civil forfeiture case before the Sandiganbayan following the impeachment of Corona in 2012 over his failure to declare wealth in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth.
Corona succumbed to heart failure on April 29, 2016, leaving behind his wife in the forfeiture case.
In January 2016, the Sandiganbayan summoned several bank documents and the testimonies of some bank officials to shed light into the P130-million forfeiture case.
When the couple filed an omnibus motion to oppose the anti-graft court’s subpoenas in February 2016, the court issued an April 28, 2016 resolution to withdraw its issuance of subpoenas.
The Sandiganbayan quashed the subpoenas of the prosecution issued to Enrico Cruz and Celia Orbeta of Deutsche Bank AG Manila.
The bank executives were tapped to authenticate copies of a letter dated June 2012 from the bank to then-Bureau of Internal Revenue chief Kim Henares pertaining to Corona’s dollar deposits supposedly amounting to $167,000 from 2002 to 2011.
The Sandiganbayan also ruled to exclude the evidence produced from the subpoena addressed to Cruz and Orbeta, as well as to Anthony Chua of Allied Banking Corp., Francisco Burgos Jr. and Maybelen Villareal of Land Bank of the Philippines, and Pascual Garcia III of PS Bank.
The court, however, reversed its April, 2016 resolution and released its new ruling a week ago.
“After a careful study, the Court finds merit in granting a reconsideration of the Resolution of April 28, 2016. Bank deposits can be inquired into upon order of this Court if said deposits are the subject of litigation, like in this case,” the Sandiganbayan said.
State prosecutors also cited the Ombudsman Act of 1989, which grants “investigators and prosecutors the authority to issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecume, or make an application for the issuance of such subpoenas before the Sandiganbayan.”
The Sandiganbayan said questionable bank accounts can be summoned if its deposits are the subject of litigation, saying even Republic Act No. 6426, or the Act Instituting A Foreign Currency Deposit System in the Philippines, has its exceptions.
Section 8 of RA 6426 provides that foreign currency deposits can be subpoenaed as long as it aids the “process of any court, legislative body, government agency or any administrative body whatsoever.”
Corona’s case stemmed from an impeachment trial against over his alleged misdeclarations in his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth.
In 2012, the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, convicted Corona for betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution over non-declaration of several assets, including real estate properties in his SALNs, causing his removal from the Supreme Court.
