Motion to Quash Subpoena Rustans Design Exchange Feb9 A909

8/3/2019 Motion to Quash Subpoena Rustans Design Exchange Feb9 A909

1/7

~ u h l i r of t4r J4ilippiurs( ! h r n g r ~ s s of tqr J4ilippinrs

cStnaft'11. FEB -9 A9 :09

SITTING AS THE IMPEACHMENT COURT

IN THE MATTER OF THEIMPEACHMENT OFRENATO C. CORONA ASCHIEF JUSTICE OF THESUPREME COURT OF THEPHILIPPINES.REPRESENTATIVES NIELC. TUPAS, JR., JOSEPHEMILIO A. ABAYA,LORENZO R. TANADA III,REYNALDO V. UMALI,ARLENE J. BAG-AO, et al.

Case No. 002-2011

It---------------------------------------------------------------------------------ItURGENT MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA(RUSTAN'S and DESIGN CONCEPTS)

Chief Justice Renato C. Corona ("CJ Corona''), by counsel, states his bases fordisputing and challending the issuance of certain subpoenae, without waiving his rightto file the appropriate legal remedy to question, among others, the legality of theseproceedings, respectfully states:

1. This Honorable Impeachment Court issued a Subpoena Ad Testificandum etDace.!" Tecum dated 1 February 2012 to The Authorized Officer of Rustan CommercialCorporation (Rustan's), to bring "(a) Official Receipt OR No: 102768 Date:

Motion toQuash Subpoena(Rnstan s nd Design Exchange)

Page 1 0/7


2/7

06/16/2011 As per transaction # 60187/422 RECEIVED from Supreme Court inthe amount of P61,740.73 with attached Rustan's Itemized List consisting of nineteen(19) items; (b) Pertinent Bridal/Gift registry on the 60th Wedding Anniversary ofJames and Julie Dy; and (c) Other pertinent (sic) to this transaction on file withRustan's Office."

2. On even date, this Honorable Impeachment Court also issued asubpoena ad testificandum et duces tecum to THE OWNER/MANAGER of DesignExchange Incorporated (Design Exchange), to bring the original and certified truecopies of "(a) Design EXCHANGE Incorporated Sales Invoice No. 4874 dated 10June 2010 under the name 'c/o CRISTINA CORONA CJ RENATO CORONA'amounting to P20,400.00; and (b) Design EXCHANGE Incorporated Sales InvoiceNo. 4920 dated 29 June 2010 under the name 'RENATO CORONA CRISTINACORONA' amounting to P25,000.00."

3. CJ Corona respectfully moves to quash the said subpoenae for beingirrelevant and immaterial to the proceedings, on the basis of the reasons beingclaimed in the Request for Issuance of Subpoenae filed on 31 January 2012. Plainly,the grounds relied upon by the House of Representatives in Article III do not makeany mention of the subject matter indicated in the Request for Subpoenae, vii::

III. RESPONDENT COMMITTED CULPABLEVIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND BETRAYEDTHE PUBLIC TRUST BY FAILING TO MEET ANDOBSERVE THE STRINGENT STANDARDS UNDER ART.VIII, SECTION 7 (3) OF THE CONSTITUTION THATPROVIDES THAT "[AJ MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY MUSTBE A PERSON OF PROVEN COMPETENCE, INTEGRITY,Motion toQuash Subpoena

(Rustan and Design Exchange)Page 20/7


3/7

PROBITY, AND INDEPENDENCE" IN ALLOWING THESUPREME COURT TO ACT ON MERE LETTERS FILED BYA COUNSEL WHICH CAUSED THE ISSUANCE OF FLIPFLOPPING DECISIONS IN FINAL AND EXECUTORYCASES; IN CREATING AN EXCESSIVE ENTANGLEMENTWITH MRS. ARROYO THROUGH HER APPOINTMENT OFHIS WIFE TO OFFICE; AND IN DISCUSSING WITHLITIGANTS REGARDING CASES PENDING BEFORE THESUPREME COURT.

4. To be sure, Art. III makes reference to 3 alleged acts of C] Corona:"allowing the Supreme Court to act on mere lettets filed by a counsel which causedthe flip-flopping decisions in final and executory cases; creating an excessiveentaglement with Mrs. Arroyo through her appointment of his wife to office; and indiscussing with litigants regarding cases pending before the Supreme Court."

5. Nowhere in Art. III is there any statement of ultimate facts that refer tothe use of judicial funds for personal expenditures. While allusions and incidentalreferences to misuse of funds is found in the Discussion of Art. III , the same neitherconstitute statements of ultimate facts nor categorical assertions of misconduct. I t isclear from Pars. 3.4.9 and 3.4.10 that what the House of Representatives mention aremere 'reports' of 'lunches and dinners, personal travels and vacations, and fetes andparties, * * reportedlY charged * * to judicial funds."

6. Rule 128, Section 3 of the Rules of Court states that "(e)vidence isadmissible when i t is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law orthese rules."

7. As the record of this case shows, CJ Corona has raised a continuingobjection to Complainants' presentation of evidence on his supposed acquisition of

Motion toQuash Subpoena(Bustan's and Design Exchange)Pagel 0/7


4/7

wealth, and alleged acts of graft and corruption, on the ground that such charges arebeyond the scope of Article II of the Impeachment Complaint. Similarly, CJ Coronarespectfully reiterates said objection in respect of Article III. Furthermore, it is CJCorona's position that the continuous presentation of such irrelevant and immaterialevidence -- which are- not based on ultimate facts -- would violate his constitutionalright to due process and to be properly informed of the charges against him.

8. The testimony of the authorized officers of Rustan's and DesignExchange on certain transactiosn with these establishments, as well as thepresentation thereof, are therefore irrelevant and immaterial to the issue of whether ornot CJ Corona is responsible for the alleged flip-flopping of decisions, exceSSIveentanglement with Mrs. Arroyo and discussions of pending cases.

9. The acts and violations imputed to CJ Corona in Article III are confinedto specific acts. Allowing the introduction of documents and testimony regardingalleged impropriety of certain transactions with Rustan's and Design Exchange are

totally inconsistent with the allegaitions in Article III. Moreover, even a close perusalof Pars. 3.4.9 and 3.4.10 do not make mention of purchases or acquisitions of goodsor gifts. Without conceding that Pars. 3.4.9 and 3.4.10 state violations or acts withsufficient specificity, it cannot be helped but to draw attention to the very premiserelied upon in the said paragraphs, i.e., that the allegations therein rest on nothingmore than mere reports. To repeat, there is no statement anywhere in Article III ofthe purchase of goods or gifts.

Motion toQuash Subpoena(Rnstan's and Design Exchange)

Page 4 of7


5/7

10. CJ Corona draws attention the ratio of the Honorable ImpeachmentCourt in its Resolution of 30 January 2012, requiring that "amplification(s) of * *accusatory language" must have a "demonsttable and logical relations to the groundsallged in Article (111)." Absent such a showing, it would be incorrect and baseless toconclude that "(s)uch allegation is relevant to the fact in issue." Similarly, it istherefore improbable that any direct, logical connection can be established betweenthe purchases from Rustan's and Design Exchange with the facts in issue of flip-flopping, excessive entanglement and discussions of pending cases. Indeed, there isniether showing of materiality nor relevance.

11. Rule 128, Section 4 of the Rules of Court states:

Relevancy; collateral matters. - Evidence must have such a relationto 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 inany reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the factin issue.

12. Evidence is relevant if it establishes direcdy or indirecdy the existenceor non-existence of the facts in issue.1 Evidence is relevant when it relates direcdy toa fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence.2 Relevancy ormateriality of evidence is a matter of logic, since it is determined simply byascertaining its logical connection to a fact in issue in the case.3 The official receiptsand records of ttansactions, including the testimony, to be presented by theauthorized officers of Rustan's and Design Exchange are therefore INADMISSIBLEAS EVIDENCE.

1 Oscar M. Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. V Revised Rules on Evidence, 1999 Edition, p. 23.2 Lejano v. People, C.R. No. 176389, December 14, 2010.'Cruz-Arevalo v. Querubin-Layosa, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2005, July 14, 2006. Motion to Quash Subpoena

(Rnstan:r and Design Exchange)Page 5 0/7


6/7

13. From the foregoing, it is clear that the presentation of the officialreceipts, other documents related to these transactions and the testimonies of theauthorized officers ofRustan's and Design Exchange are improper and violative ofCJCorona's constitutional right to be informed of the charges against him.4 Hence, thisHonorable Court's Subpoena dated 1 February 2012 should be quashed.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Chief Justice Renato C. Coronarespectfully prays that this Honorable Impeachment Court quash the Subpoena AdTestifacndum ef Duces Tecum addressed to authorized represenatitves of Rustan's andDesign Exchange, or in the alternative, issue an Order prohibiting them fromtestifying and presenting documents on the allged. transactions with saidestablishments, for being without basis, irrelevant and immaterial to Article II of theImpeachment Complaint.

Other reliefs, just or equitable under the circumstances, are likewise prayed for.

Makati for Pasay City, 9 February 2012.

Respectfully Submitted byCounsel for ChiefJustice Renato C. Corona.

JOSE M. OY IIIPTR No. 2643183; 1/04/11; Makati City

IBP LRN 02570 August 20,2001 (Lifetime)Roll ofAttorneys No. 37065MCLE Exemption No. 1-000176

4 Section 14, Art. III, Constitution. Motion toQuash Subpoena(Rnstan'.r and Design Exchange)

Page 6 0/7


7/7

DENNIS P. MANALOPTR No. 31745833; 2 January 2012, Makati City

IBP No. 870170; 2 January 2012, Makati CityRoll No. 40950, 12 April 1996MCLE Compliance No. III-0009471, 26 April 2010

Copies furnished:House ofRepresentativesBatasan PambansaBatasan Hills, Quezon City

Senators of the Republic of the PhilippinesGSIS BuildingMacapagal HighwayPasay City

HOUSE PROSECUTION PANEL

Motion toQuash Subpoena(Rnstan:r and Design Exchange)Page 7 qf7

Documents

Motion to Quash Subpoena Rustans Design Exchange Feb9 A909