Vizconde: Money was intended for justices
MANILA, Philippines—Both Chief Justice Renato Corona and Lauro Vizconde were purportedly warned in 2006 by a then justice of the Court of Appeals that P50 million in “lobby money” was being offered to magistrates to secure the acquittal of Hubert Webb.
Vizconde himself made the claim in an affidavit dated Jan. 27, 2011, but did not indicate whether then appellate justice Jose Mendoza had named any person behind the purported lobby.
Calls and text messages to Webb’s father, former Sen. Freddie Webb, went unanswered.
Vizconde Tuesday held a press conference in Quezon City where his lawyer Ferdinand Topacio distributed copies of the affidavit.
At the bottom of the first page, Vizconde said that “sometime in 2006,” he was “granted an audience by Justice Jose Mendoza” in the latter’s chambers.
He said that he was with Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao of the Court of Appeals and Chief Public Attorney Persida Rueda-Acosta at the time, and that “when we arrived … then Court of Appeals Justice Lucas Bersamin was also present.”
Part of the affidavit reads: “In the chambers of Justice Mendoza, and while talking about the status of the case and the possible timeframe for its resolution, we were surprised when Justice Mendoza told us that ‘May lumalak[a]d nga nitong kaso’ (Someone’s lobbying for this case) and there [was] even talk of fifty million pesos as ‘lobby money’ being offered by the accused for a favorable decision of acquittal.”
3 justices’ denial
Speaking through Jose Midas Marquez, the high court’s spokesperson, Mendoza, Bersamin and Dimaampao Tuesday denied meeting with Vizconde and his associates in 2006.
Vizconde did not say if Mendoza named anyone behind the purported lobby.
Mendoza and Bersamin, now both justices of the Supreme Court, voted to acquit Webb and six others last December. Corona voted against the acquittal.
Vizconde was recently “strongly admonished” by the high court in a resolution for his refusal to name his so-called sources who claimed that Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio had lobbied colleagues to vote for Webb’s acquittal.
Taking offense at what he said was the way the resolution was worded, Vizconde said on Monday that it was Corona who warned him in September 2010 about Carpio’s alleged lobbying.
But through Marquez, Corona categorically denied Vizconde’s claim.
Vizconde said in his sworn statement that by the time he visited Mendoza in 2006, the appellate court had affirmed by a 3-0 vote the conviction of Webb et al. of the June 1991 murder of his wife Estrellita and their daughters Carmela and Jennifer.
The conviction was handed down by the Parañaque Regional Trial Court (RTC) in January 2000.
By then also, defense lawyers had already appealed the appellate court’s ruling.
But Vizconde said Mendoza’s warning was “validated somehow” when at the time the appellate court released a decision on the defense’s motion, “one of the justices who … concurred to affirm the conviction of Webb et al. changed his vote and voted to grant the motion for reconsideration and acquit the accused.”
He said the resulting 2-1 vote caused the appellate court to create a special division of five justices to resolve the split. (Under the law, three votes are required to secure a conviction or an acquittal.)
Subsequently, the special division delivered a 3-2 vote for conviction. The case was later elevated to the high court.
Ex-judges of QC
Marquez told the Inquirer in an interview Tuesday that he had sought the reactions of Mendoza, Bersamin and Dimaampao on Vizconde’s latest allegation. (Magistrates of the high court and the appellate court rarely allow interviews with the media.)
He said that the three justices knew each other because they worked together as judges in Quezon City, and that they had all denied that the meeting claimed by Vizconde when they were all with the appellate court had ever taken place.
Mendoza recalled that Vizconde and the others mentioned in the affidavit did make a courtesy call to congratulate him on his appointment to the appellate court, Marquez said.
He said Mendoza knew Vizconde and the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC) because the group had once awarded him for his work as a judge presiding over a heinous crimes court.
“Justice Mendoza said they [made] a social call to him ... because he knows them as a VACC awardee when he was a Quezon City judge. But he never discusses any case with anyone,” Marquez said.
He quoted Mendoza as telling him: “In the first place, I know nothing about that case because it’s not in my division, and I don’t talk to any justice about cases that are not mine or are not under my division.”
‘That’s not true’
Marquez said Dimaampao surmised that Vizconde made the connection between him and Chief Public Attorney Acosta because they were classmates in law school.
“Justice Bersamin was categorical—that meeting, with Justices Mendoza and Dimaampao, with Percy Acosta, did not happen at all,” Marquez said.
He added: “That is what Justice Dimaampao said as well: ‘Hindi totoo yun’ (That’s not true).’
“Justice Bersamin does not know them (Vizconde et al.) at all ... He was not there in [Mendoza’s] chambers. He tries not to associate with them, especially that time that he was teaching in law school.”
Marquez said Bersamin was “very certain that he met Mr. Vizconde only once in the [appellate court].”
“Justice Bersamin was on his way out of the elevator, at the lobby, while Mr. Vizconde was about to get in,” Marquez said.
He said the two men greeted each other because Bersamin was acquainted with the VACC people who frequented the Quezon City RTC.
‘Indirect attack’
Marquez said Vizconde had “everything mixed up.”
“[The justices] were all surprised to hear their names being dragged into this,” he said.
He also said Vizconde’s allegations against the justices—beginning with Carpio, then Corona and now the three other magistrates—constituted “an indirect attack on the court.”
“You are attacking the justices. In effect that is the court. You started with the Chief Justice, then the associate justices. Who’s next? What’s next?” Marquez said.
“We have to be very careful in issuing statements like this because it affects the integrity of the Supreme Court. I don’t know what his objectives are. But one thing is certain, the integrity and the reputation of the court are being put at issue,” he said.
At his press conference, Vizconde apologized to Corona and said he was pushed to name the latter because of the high court’s resolution chiding him for withholding the identities of his “sources.”
“I expected his denial, but it is still his word against mine,” Vizconde insisted. I do not intend to antagonize the Chief Justice and I believe he did not have any personal agenda for revealing what he did. I sincerely believe he did it out of sympathy. I think the sole reason was that he wanted to help.”
No malice
VACC founding chair Dante Jimenez attested to Vizconde’s hesitation to name Corona.
“In fact, my good friend and I did not speak for several days because of his refusal to name the Chief Justice,” Jimenez said.
The two men issued separate sworn statements narrating how Corona had purportedly revealed to them that Carpio was pressuring fellow justices to vote for Webb’s acquittal.
The affidavits were to have been given to the high court after it ordered Vizconde to name the justices who, he claimed, had tipped him off on Carpio.
But Vizconde decided not to give his affidavit to the high court. He told Jimenez and lawyer Topacio that doing so would betray Corona who, he felt, had warned him only out of concern.
“I did not see any malice on the part of the Chief Justice when he gave the warning,” Jimenez said of the September visit. “I think what he was trying to tell us indirectly was ‘kumilos-kilos na kayo’ (you better do something), and so Ka Lauro was alarmed.”
Congratulations
Portions of Vizconde’s affidavit narrated his meeting with Corona in September last year.
At a press conference, Marquez defended Corona for receiving Vizconde and Jimenez in his old chambers as an associate justice. (At that time, Marquez said, Corona had yet to transfer to his chambers as Chief Justice.)
Marquez said that as Chief Justice, Corona was also the administrator of the entire judiciary.
“His [responsibility] is not purely adjudicative. So when he met them, he thought they were only going to congratulate him, [the VACC] being part of the justice sector. He initially thought maybe they would congratulate him and raise some concerns about the administration of justice in general. And that is why when the conversation turned to that case, then the Chief Justice, after saying it was a collegial decision, had to end the conversation,” Marquez said.
Vizconde himself made the claim in an affidavit dated Jan. 27, 2011, but did not indicate whether then appellate justice Jose Mendoza had named any person behind the purported lobby.
Calls and text messages to Webb’s father, former Sen. Freddie Webb, went unanswered.
Vizconde Tuesday held a press conference in Quezon City where his lawyer Ferdinand Topacio distributed copies of the affidavit.
At the bottom of the first page, Vizconde said that “sometime in 2006,” he was “granted an audience by Justice Jose Mendoza” in the latter’s chambers.
He said that he was with Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao of the Court of Appeals and Chief Public Attorney Persida Rueda-Acosta at the time, and that “when we arrived … then Court of Appeals Justice Lucas Bersamin was also present.”
Part of the affidavit reads: “In the chambers of Justice Mendoza, and while talking about the status of the case and the possible timeframe for its resolution, we were surprised when Justice Mendoza told us that ‘May lumalak[a]d nga nitong kaso’ (Someone’s lobbying for this case) and there [was] even talk of fifty million pesos as ‘lobby money’ being offered by the accused for a favorable decision of acquittal.”
3 justices’ denial
Speaking through Jose Midas Marquez, the high court’s spokesperson, Mendoza, Bersamin and Dimaampao Tuesday denied meeting with Vizconde and his associates in 2006.
Vizconde did not say if Mendoza named anyone behind the purported lobby.
Mendoza and Bersamin, now both justices of the Supreme Court, voted to acquit Webb and six others last December. Corona voted against the acquittal.
Vizconde was recently “strongly admonished” by the high court in a resolution for his refusal to name his so-called sources who claimed that Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio had lobbied colleagues to vote for Webb’s acquittal.
Taking offense at what he said was the way the resolution was worded, Vizconde said on Monday that it was Corona who warned him in September 2010 about Carpio’s alleged lobbying.
But through Marquez, Corona categorically denied Vizconde’s claim.
Vizconde said in his sworn statement that by the time he visited Mendoza in 2006, the appellate court had affirmed by a 3-0 vote the conviction of Webb et al. of the June 1991 murder of his wife Estrellita and their daughters Carmela and Jennifer.
The conviction was handed down by the Parañaque Regional Trial Court (RTC) in January 2000.
By then also, defense lawyers had already appealed the appellate court’s ruling.
But Vizconde said Mendoza’s warning was “validated somehow” when at the time the appellate court released a decision on the defense’s motion, “one of the justices who … concurred to affirm the conviction of Webb et al. changed his vote and voted to grant the motion for reconsideration and acquit the accused.”
He said the resulting 2-1 vote caused the appellate court to create a special division of five justices to resolve the split. (Under the law, three votes are required to secure a conviction or an acquittal.)
Subsequently, the special division delivered a 3-2 vote for conviction. The case was later elevated to the high court.
Ex-judges of QC
Marquez told the Inquirer in an interview Tuesday that he had sought the reactions of Mendoza, Bersamin and Dimaampao on Vizconde’s latest allegation. (Magistrates of the high court and the appellate court rarely allow interviews with the media.)
He said that the three justices knew each other because they worked together as judges in Quezon City, and that they had all denied that the meeting claimed by Vizconde when they were all with the appellate court had ever taken place.
Mendoza recalled that Vizconde and the others mentioned in the affidavit did make a courtesy call to congratulate him on his appointment to the appellate court, Marquez said.
He said Mendoza knew Vizconde and the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC) because the group had once awarded him for his work as a judge presiding over a heinous crimes court.
“Justice Mendoza said they [made] a social call to him ... because he knows them as a VACC awardee when he was a Quezon City judge. But he never discusses any case with anyone,” Marquez said.
He quoted Mendoza as telling him: “In the first place, I know nothing about that case because it’s not in my division, and I don’t talk to any justice about cases that are not mine or are not under my division.”
‘That’s not true’
Marquez said Dimaampao surmised that Vizconde made the connection between him and Chief Public Attorney Acosta because they were classmates in law school.
“Justice Bersamin was categorical—that meeting, with Justices Mendoza and Dimaampao, with Percy Acosta, did not happen at all,” Marquez said.
He added: “That is what Justice Dimaampao said as well: ‘Hindi totoo yun’ (That’s not true).’
“Justice Bersamin does not know them (Vizconde et al.) at all ... He was not there in [Mendoza’s] chambers. He tries not to associate with them, especially that time that he was teaching in law school.”
Marquez said Bersamin was “very certain that he met Mr. Vizconde only once in the [appellate court].”
“Justice Bersamin was on his way out of the elevator, at the lobby, while Mr. Vizconde was about to get in,” Marquez said.
He said the two men greeted each other because Bersamin was acquainted with the VACC people who frequented the Quezon City RTC.
‘Indirect attack’
Marquez said Vizconde had “everything mixed up.”
“[The justices] were all surprised to hear their names being dragged into this,” he said.
He also said Vizconde’s allegations against the justices—beginning with Carpio, then Corona and now the three other magistrates—constituted “an indirect attack on the court.”
“You are attacking the justices. In effect that is the court. You started with the Chief Justice, then the associate justices. Who’s next? What’s next?” Marquez said.
“We have to be very careful in issuing statements like this because it affects the integrity of the Supreme Court. I don’t know what his objectives are. But one thing is certain, the integrity and the reputation of the court are being put at issue,” he said.
At his press conference, Vizconde apologized to Corona and said he was pushed to name the latter because of the high court’s resolution chiding him for withholding the identities of his “sources.”
“I expected his denial, but it is still his word against mine,” Vizconde insisted. I do not intend to antagonize the Chief Justice and I believe he did not have any personal agenda for revealing what he did. I sincerely believe he did it out of sympathy. I think the sole reason was that he wanted to help.”
No malice
VACC founding chair Dante Jimenez attested to Vizconde’s hesitation to name Corona.
“In fact, my good friend and I did not speak for several days because of his refusal to name the Chief Justice,” Jimenez said.
The two men issued separate sworn statements narrating how Corona had purportedly revealed to them that Carpio was pressuring fellow justices to vote for Webb’s acquittal.
The affidavits were to have been given to the high court after it ordered Vizconde to name the justices who, he claimed, had tipped him off on Carpio.
But Vizconde decided not to give his affidavit to the high court. He told Jimenez and lawyer Topacio that doing so would betray Corona who, he felt, had warned him only out of concern.
“I did not see any malice on the part of the Chief Justice when he gave the warning,” Jimenez said of the September visit. “I think what he was trying to tell us indirectly was ‘kumilos-kilos na kayo’ (you better do something), and so Ka Lauro was alarmed.”
Congratulations
Portions of Vizconde’s affidavit narrated his meeting with Corona in September last year.
At a press conference, Marquez defended Corona for receiving Vizconde and Jimenez in his old chambers as an associate justice. (At that time, Marquez said, Corona had yet to transfer to his chambers as Chief Justice.)
Marquez said that as Chief Justice, Corona was also the administrator of the entire judiciary.
“His [responsibility] is not purely adjudicative. So when he met them, he thought they were only going to congratulate him, [the VACC] being part of the justice sector. He initially thought maybe they would congratulate him and raise some concerns about the administration of justice in general. And that is why when the conversation turned to that case, then the Chief Justice, after saying it was a collegial decision, had to end the conversation,” Marquez said.
No comments:
Post a Comment