FRISCO F. SAN JUAN, G.R. No. 173956
Petitioner,
Present:
Ynares-Santiago, J. (Chairperson),
- versus - Austria-Martinez,
Chico-Nazario,
Nachura, and
Reyes, JJ.
THE SANDIGANBAYAN and THE
PEOPLE OF THE
Respondents.
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assails the February
6, 2006 Resolution[1] of the Sandiganbayan
in Criminal Case No. 27808 granting the prosecution’s Manifestation with Motion
for Additional Marking of Documentary Exhibits and the June 21, 2006 Resolution[2]
denying the motions for reconsideration separately filed by petitioner and his
co-accused.
Petitioner
Frisco F. San Juan, in his capacity as Chairman of the Public Estates Authority
(PEA), together with 26 other accused, composed of PEA Board of Directors, PEA
Officers, Officers of the Commission on Audit and the contractor of Central
Boulevard Project (now the President Diosdado Macapagal Boulevard), Jesusito D.
Legaspi, were charged before the Sandiganbayan with violation of Sec. 3 (e) of
Republic Act No. 3019[3] in
an Information which reads:
That in or about the period from
April 1999 to August 2002, in Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused public officials of the Public
Estates Authority (PEA), namely: CARLOS P. DOBLE, former General Manager (with
Salary Grade 30) and ex-oficio member of the PEA Board, BENJAMIN V. CARIÑO, PEA
General Manager (with Salary Grade 30) and ex-oficio member of the Board, and
other responsible public officials of PEA, namely: FRISCO FRANCISCO SAN JUAN,
former Chairman of the Board, CARMELITA DE LEON-CHAN, DANIEL T. DAYAN, SALVADOR
P. MALBAROSA, LEO V. PADILLA and ELPIDIO G. DAMASO, all former members of the
Board, ERNEST FREDERICK O. VILLAREAL, Chairman of the Board, and JOEMARI D.
GEROCHI, ANGELITO M. VILLANUEVA, MARTIN S. SANCIEGO, JR., and RODOLFO T.
TUAZON, all Board members, JAIME R. MILLAN, Assistant General Manager, MANUEL
R. BERIÑA, JR., Deputy General Manager for Operations & Technical Services
and Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee responsible for the bidding and award of
the construction contract for the President Diosdado Macapagal Boulevard
Project, THERON VICTOR V. LACSON, Deputy General Manager for Finance, Legal and
Administration and member of the Ad Hoc Committee, BERNARDO T. VIRAY, Manager
for Technical Services Department and member of the Ad Hoc Committee, RAPHAEL
POCHOLO A. ZORILLA, Project Management Officer, ERNESTO L. ENRIQUEZ, Senior
Corporate Attorney and member of the Ad Hoc Committee, and CRISTINA
AMPOSTA-MORTEL, Department Manager, Legal Department, and other responsible
public officials of the Commission on Audit (COA), namely: MANUELA E. DELA PAZ,
State Auditor V, ARTURO S. LAYUG, State Auditor V and Chief of the Technical
Services Audit Division A, Technical Services Office, BENILDA E. MENDOZA,
Supervising Technical Audit Specialist, EPIFANIO L. PUREZA, Assistant Chief of
the Technical Services Audit Division A, JOSE G. CAPISTRANO, Technical Audit
Specialist II, and MA. CECILIA A. DELA RAMA, Technical Audit Specialist I, all
of whom were public officials during the times material to the subject offense,
while said public officials were occupying their respective positions as just
stated, acting in such capacity and committing the subject offense in relation
to office and while in the performance of their functions and duties, with
manifest partiality and evident bad faith (or at the very least, gross
inexcusable negligence), conspiring and confederating with accused JESUSITO D.
LEGASPI, a private contractor doing business under the name of J.D. Legaspi
Construction, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally give
unwarranted benefits, advantage and preference to accused JESUSITO D. LEGASPI,
through the commission of numerous illegal related acts all pertaining to the
President Diosdado Macapagal Boulevard Project, such as (but not limited to)
the bidding out of the said project and illegally awarding the same to accused
JESUSITO D. LEGASPI’s J.D. Legaspi Construction
and approving the award of the project to, as well as the Construction
Agreement with, J.D. Legaspi Construction despite the lack of compliance with
the mandatory requirements and procedure for bidding, even if no funds are yet
available to finance the project, without the requisite certificate of
availability of funds and without complying with the mandatory conditions
imposed by the Office of the President of the approval thereof, per Memorandum
dated 29 January 2000 from the Office of the Executive Secretary, Malacañang,
and approving/allowing several improper variation/change orders and overruns to
be implemented without the requisite presidential approval and the appropriate
funds, recognizing, affirming and causing the implementation of the
just-mentioned void contract, allowing and paying or causing the allowance and
payment of several claims of accused JESUSITO D. LEGASPI for initial contract
price, contract price adjustment, variation orders, overruns and other claims
even when the same were clearly improper, illegal and without the requisite
presidential approval, thereby paving the way for accused JESUSITO D. LEGASPI
to claim and receive undue payments from the Government totaling millions of pesos in improper overprice, thereby
causing undue injury and grave damage to the government in the aggregate amount
of at least FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY TWO MILLION NINE HUNDRED TWENTY-SIX THOUSAND
FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY AND 39/100 PESOS (P532,926,420.39), more or less,
constituting the total illegal overprice paid to accused JESUSITO D. LEGASPI
for the subject Project.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]
When
arraigned on
The
People, represented by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), filed its
pre-trial brief with proposed Exhibits A to HHHH dated
Thereafter,
the Sandiganbayan issued a Pre-Trial Order,[5] the
pertinent portions of which state:
The Prosecution reserves the right to present additional documentary evidence, although this reservation was objected to by the accused on the ground that it violates their constitutional right.[6]
x x x x
Accused
Frisco F. San Juan reserves the right to present additional documentary
evidence.[7]
x x x x
This
Pre-Trial Order shall bind the parties, limit the issues and control the course
of the trial, unless modified by the Court to prevent manifest injustice.
SO ORDERED.[8]
On
At the scheduled hearing on
Petitioner filed an Opposition[10]
alleging that the motion fails to comply with the three (3) day notice rule,
thus, it is fatally defective which must be dismissed outright; that the
prosecution’s attempt to introduce additional evidence after Pre-Trial has been
completed, without petitioner having been confronted by such evidence, violates
petitioner’s fundamental rights under the Constitution; that petitioner’s right
to due process has been violated by the presentation of the prosecution’s “additional
evidence” when such pieces of evidence ought to have been presented during the
pre-trial of the case; that the prosecution failed to show “good cause” in
order for the “additional evidence” to be accepted, since only those pieces of evidence
which are identified and marked are allowed by the court.
On
Acting
on the Prosecution’s Manifestation with Motion for Additional Marking of
Documentary Exhibits dated January 23, 2006, with the comments and/or
oppositions thereto separately filed by accused: (1) Layug, (2) de Leon-Chan,
(3) Pureza and Capistrano, (4) Legaspi, (5) Padilla, (6) Beriña, Millan, Viray
and Zorilla, (7) San Juan, and (8)Amposta-Mortel, the Court resolves to GRANT
the aforementioned motion but only insofar as to allow additional marking of
documentary exhibits which have been sufficiently described in the said motion,
over the objection of the defense, in order to give the Prosecution the
opportunity to fully present its case, and considering that the Pre-Trial Order
has not been signed by the parties. The defense may register their objections
to the documentary exhibits at the time that the same are introduced in
evidence. As prayed for, the prosecution may present the additional documents
enumerated in its aforesaid motion for marking, and the same shall be included
in its list of exhibits in the Amended Pre-Trial Order to be issued by the Court.[12]
Petitioner and his co-accused filed separate
motions for reconsideration but were denied by the Sandiganbayan in its
While
it is true that pre-trial has already been terminated, records show that,
before the Pre-Trial Order dated November 7, 2005 was issued, the Court made
clear to all the parties, considering the numerous documentary evidence sought
to be marked and presented by the parties, that the said Order was “without
prejudice to the comment [on the Pre-Trial Order] of the prosecution and the
accused;” that is, the Court may still accept any modification of the said
Order from both the prosecution and the accused. Upon request of the parties,
the Court gave the prosecution and the accused a period of time “to file a
formal manifestation with respect to some changes they would like to propose in
the Pre-Trial Order” notwithstanding the commencement of the trial.[14]
x x x x
Apparent
from the foregoing is the fact that while the pre-trial has effectively been
terminated, the Court gave both the prosecution and the accused the opportunity
to submit comments to the Pre-Trial Order or to modify their submissions or in
some instances, even to withdraw the stipulations they made during the
pre-trial. The Court’s position is consistent with the exercise of its
discretion to decide how best to dispense justice in accordance with the
circumstances of the proceedings before it. The decision to grant the
prosecution’s motion for additional marking of documentary exhibits is another
exercise of this judicial prerogative, which prerogative was made known to the
parties in the Pre-Trial Order dated
The
guidelines on the conduct of the pre-trial, including A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, were
prescribed by the Honorable Supreme Court to “abbreviate court proceedings,
ensure prompt disposition of cases and decongest court dockets.” The Court does
not mean to disregard or ignore these guidelines but the Court is compelled to
take into consideration, in the interest of substantial justice, the various
submissions of both the prosecution and the accused mentioned above in
connection with the agreements reached by the parties that they be allowed to
submit their comments on the pre-trial order, even while the trial had begun so
as not to delay the proceedings.
WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing, the instant Motions for Reconsideration of the accused-movants
are hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
SO
ORDERED.[15]
Hence, this petition.
The issues for resolution are: (1)
whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion when it granted OSP’s motion
for additional marking of exhibits; and (2) whether the admission of the
“additional evidence” constitutes a violation of petitioner’s constitutional
right to due process.
The petition lacks merit.
Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of
Court, reads:
SEC.
4. Hearing of motion. – Except for motions which the court may act upon without
prejudicing the rights of the adverse party, every written motion shall be set
for hearing by the applicant.
Every
written motion required to be heard and the notice of the hearing thereof shall
be served in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party at least
three (3) days before the date of hearing, unless the court for good cause sets
the hearing on shorter notice.
While it is true that any motion that
does not comply with the requirements of Rule 15 should not be accepted for
filing and, if filed, is not entitled to judicial cognizance, however, this
Court has likewise held that where a rigid application of the rule will result
in a manifest failure or miscarriage of justice, technicalities may be disregarded
in order to resolve the case.[16]
Besides, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, the court may disregard
procedural lapses, so that a case may be resolved on its merits based on the
evidence presented by the parties.[17] Moreover, under the above-cited Rule, the
Court is granted the authority to set the hearing on shorter notice upon
showing of good cause.
In the instant case, petitioner was
served with the Manifestation with Motion for Additional Marking of Documentary
Exhibits on
This Court allows a liberal
construction of this rule where the interest of substantial justice will be
served and where the resolution of the motion is addressed solely to the sound
and judicious discretion of the court,[20]
as in the instant case. Thus, the
Sandiganbayan correctly held that:
Apparent
from the foregoing is the fact that while the pre-trial has effectively been
terminated, the Court gave both the prosecution and the accused the opportunity
to submit comments to the Pre-Trial Order or to modify their submissions or in
some instances, even to withdraw the stipulations they made during the
pre-trial. The Court’s position is consistent with the exercise of its discretion
to decide how best to dispense justice in accordance with the circumstances of
the proceedings before it. The decision to grant the prosecution’s motion for
additional marking of documentary exhibits is another exercise of this judicial
prerogative, which prerogative was made known to the parties in the Pre-Trial
Order dated November 7, 2005, when the Court stated that such was subject to
modification “in order to prevent manifest injustice.[21] (Emphasis
supplied)
There is likewise no merit to
petitioner’s contention that his right to due process was violated when the
OSP’s motion was granted. In its
Resolution of
[T]he Court resolves
to GRANT the aforementioned motion but only insofar as to allow additional
marking of documentary exhibits which have been sufficiently described in the
said motion, over the objection of the defense, in order to give the
Prosecution the opportunity to fully present its case, and considering that the
Pre-Trial Order has not been signed by the parties. The defense may register
their objections to the documentary exhibits at the time that the same are
introduced in evidence. x x x[22]
In its Resolution dated
While
it is true that pre-trial has already been terminated, records show that,
before the Pre-Trial Order dated November 7, 2005 was issued, the Court made
clear to all the parties, considering the numerous documentary evidence sought
to be marked and presented by the parties, that the said Order was “without
prejudice to the comment [on the Pre-Trial Order] of the prosecution and the
accused;” that is, the Court may still accept any modification of the said
Order from both the prosecution and the accused. Upon request of the parties,
the Court gave the prosecution and the accused a period of time “to file a
formal manifestation with respect to some changes they would like to propose in
the Pre-Trial Order” notwithstanding the commencement of the trial.[23]
Thus, petitioner can still file his
objections to the documentary evidence during trial on the merits of the case.
Finally, there is no basis to
petitioner’s contention that the additional pieces of documentary evidence were
“surprise evidence” because during the filing of their respective pre-trial
briefs, both parties have made reservations to present additional documentary and
testimonial evidence, as may be necessary in the course of the trial;[24]
such reservations were incorporated in the Pre-Trial Order.
WHEREFORE, the
Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED.
The February 6, 2006 Resolution of the
Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 27808 granting OSP’s Manifestation with
Motion for Additional Marking of Documentary Exhibits, and the June 21, 2006
Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration, are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I
attest that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, p. 25; approved by Presiding
Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro and Associate Justices Diosdado M.
Peralta and Alexander G. Gesmundo.
[2]
[3]
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
[4] Rollo, pp. 5-7.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16] People v. Leviste, G.R. No. 104386,
[17] Active Realty and Development Corporation v.
Fernandez, G.R. No. 157186, October 19, 2007, 537 SCRA 116, 130.
[18] Rollo, p. 146.
[19]
[20] Tan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
130314, September 22, 1998, 295 SCRA 755, 767.
[21] Rollo, p. 28.
[22]
[23]
[24]