Legal jargon swamps
viewers of trial

by Karol Ilagan

LEGAL JARGON ruled the second week of the impeachment trial of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona as defense and prosecution lawyers maneuvered around Article II of the impeachment complaint.

Appearing for the first time at the impeachment court, Senator-Judge Miriam Defensor-Santiago opened last Tuesday’s session with a prayer followed by an interrogation of the prosecution and defense on one of the most contentious issues from the first week of the proceedings. As well, Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Commissioner Kim Jacinto-Henares took the witness stand and presented documents as evidence.

Below is a recap of some legal concepts and tax documents that defined the second week of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona’s impeachment trial.

On standard of proof

The Senate sitting as an impeachment court has yet to establish the “standard of proof” needed to determine conviction. This stems from yet another issue of defining the nature of an impeachment trial, which has been described as sui generis or “of its own kind.”

Senator-Judge Juan Ponce Enrile, the presiding officer of the impeachment court, earlier said that standard of proof should be “clear and convincing evidence.” When asked by Senator Santiago last Tuesday, the prosecution chose “substantial evidence” while the defense said “proof beyond reasonable doubt” is required.

Senator Santiago, for her part, said that standard of proof in the impeachment trial should be “overwhelming preponderance of evidence.”

In his Inquirer column today, Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas S. J. commented that whatever the caucus might decide will not make that much difference. “When voting time comes, each senator will vote according to his or her lights,” he wrote.

According to Bernas, there are three levels of proof in jurisprudence: substantial evidence, preponderance of evidence, and proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Rule 133 titled “Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence” of the Philippine Rules of Court states that in cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, “a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.”

Bernas explains that “substantial evidence” simply means evidence that a reasonable man can rely upon to make his decision. He adds that this type of evidence calls for “prudential judgment.”

“Preponderance of evidence” meanwhile pertains to “superior weight of evidence.” According to the Rules of Court, the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case such as the witnesses’ manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility. The court may also consider the number of witnesses although the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number.

Bernas says “preponderance of evidence” means a quantity and quality of evidence that is enough to outweigh the quantity and quality of the evidence for the other side even if neither side is persuasive.

Lastly, “proof beyond reasonable doubt” is proof that convinces a judge or a jury to exclude all other possibilities. In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt.

Tax documents

Last Wednesday, BIR Commissioner Henares testified that the Bureau had no records of Corona’s income tax returns or ITR from 2002 to 2010. However, Henares said Corona was included in the Supreme Court’s “alpha list” from 2006 to 2010.

Income tax is a tax on a person’s income, emoluments or other compensation, profits arising from property, practice of profession, conduct of trade or business or on the pertinent items of gross income as specified in the Republic Act. 8424 or the National Internal Revenue Code or the Tax Code of 1997. It should be noted that certain deductions or exemptions are also authorized by the Tax Code and other special laws.

Under the law, an income tax return must be filed by: resident citizens receiving income from sources within or outside the Philippines; non-resident citizens receiving income from sources within the Philippines; aliens, whether resident or not, receiving income from sources within the country; corporations, no matter how created or organized, including general professional partnerships; domestic corporations receiving income from sources within and outside the country; foreign corporations receiving income from sources within the country; and, estates and trusts engaged in trade or business.

Section 51 of the Tax Code allows an individual whose sole income has been subjected to final withholding tax not to file an ITR.Coronawho supposedly receives income only from public office falls under this category and thus need not file an ITR.

The “alpha list” meanwhile is a document produced and submitted by an employer or in this case, the Supreme Court, that contains income earned by “local employees” as well as the withholding tax taken from their salaries.

Based on these records, Henares saidCorona’s withholding tax amounted to P109,706.60 from a gross income of P465,597 in 2006. In the following year (2007),Corona earned P488,156.57 and paid P117,399.31 withholding tax. In 2008, his income was at P604,388.46, and withholding tax was at P154,057.75. Then in 2009,Corona paid P155,556.20 from an income of P621,528.62. Finally in 2010, the Chief Justice earned P657,755 and paid withholding tax of P176,577. There are no records of the income tax paid byCorona from 2002 to 2005 because the Supreme Court failed to submit alpha lists during this period.