SECOND DIVISION
|
JOEY P.
MARQUEZ, Petitioner, - versus - THE SANDIGANBAYAN 5TH DIVISION and THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, Respondents. |
|
G.R. Nos. 187912-14 Present: CARPIO,
J., Chairperson, NACHURA, PERALTA, ABAD, and MENDOZA,
JJ. Promulgated: January 31, 2011 |
X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
X
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA,
J.:
Through this petition for certiorari, prohibition
and mandamus with prayer for the issuance of temporary restraining order and/or
writ of preliminary injunction,[1]
petitioner Joey P. Marquez (Marquez) assails the 1] February 11, 2009
Resolution[2]
of the 5th Division of the Sandiganbayan (SB-5th Division) in Criminal Case Nos. 27903, 27904 and
27905; and its 2] May 20, 2009 Resolution[3]
denying his motion for reconsideration.
In the assailed issuances, the SB-5th
Division denied Marquez’s Motion to Refer Prosecution’s Evidence for
Examination by the Questioned Documents Section of the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI).
From the records, it
appears that as a result of the Report on the Audit of Selected Transactions and Walis Ting-ting for the City of Parañaque
for the years 1996 to 1998, conducted by the Special Audit Team of the
Commission on Audit (COA), several
anomalies were discovered involving Marquez, then City Mayor and Chairman of
the Bids and Awards committee of Parañaque City; and Ofelia C. Caunan (Caunan), Head of the General Services
Office of said city.
It was found that, through personal canvass and
without public bidding, Marquez and Caunan secured the procurement of several
thousand rounds of bullets of different calibers that were grossly overpriced from
VMY Trading, a company not registered as an arms and ammunitions dealer with either
the Firearms and Explosives Division of the Philippine National Police (PNP)
or the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI).
Finding the transactions anomalous, the COA Special
Audit Team issued Notices of Disallowances for the overpriced ammunitions.
Marquez and Caunan sought reconsideration of the findings of the team, but their
plea was denied. Aggrieved, they
elevated the matter to the COA but their appeal was denied.
At the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB), in answer to the charges filed against them, Marquez and
Caunan filed their Joint Counter Affidavit[4]
with the Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation Bureau of said office. In the
said affidavit, the two insisted on the propriety of the transactions and
raised the pendency of their appeal with the COA.
Having found probable cause to indict them for
violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, the OMB, through
the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), filed three (3) informations[5]
against Marquez and Caunan. The cases were raffled to the Fourth Division of
the Sandiganbayan (SB-4th
Division).
Before
arraignment, on
Before the SB-4th Division, to prove its
case, the prosecution presented five (5) witnesses, namely: 1] COA State
Auditor IV Fatima Valera Bermudez; 2] Elenita Pracale, Chief, Business Permit
and Licensing Office, Parañaque City; 3] Benjamin Cruz; 4] P/Insp. Rolando C.
Columna, Legal Officer, PNP Firearms and Explosive Division; and 5] Emerito L.
Lejano, President, Guns Empire. Documentary evidence consisting of disbursement
vouchers, purchase requests and authorization requests were also adduced.
On
After the prosecution rested, Caunan testified and
partly presented evidence for her defense.
Marquez, on the other hand, in his Omnibus Motion dated
April 1, 2008, moved, among others, for the inhibition of Associate Justice
Gregory Ong (Justice Ong) and Associate Justice Jose Hernandez (Justice
Hernandez) and for the referral of
the disbursement vouchers, purchase requests and authorization to the NBI.
Associate Justice Hernandez and Associate Justice Ong inhibited themselves but
the request of Marquez that the questioned documents be referred to the NBI was
not acted upon.
On
Thereafter, on
By way of Comment/Opposition to the motion, the
prosecution argued that its documentary exhibits had already been formally
offered in January 2006 and had been duly admitted by the anti-graft court. The
prosecution added that, when confronted with the questioned transactions during
the COA audit investigation, Marquez never raised the defense of forgery. Instead,
he insisted on the propriety of the transactions. He did not claim forgery either
when he filed his Joint Counter-Affidavit with the OMB. Also, in his verified
Motion for Reconsideration dated
The prosecution pointed to Section 4, Rule 129 of
the Revised Rules of Court[7]
and posited that since Marquez alleged in his pleadings that he had relied on
the competence of his subordinates, there could be no “palpable mistake,” thus,
he was estopped from alleging that his signatures on the subject documents were
forged. The prosecution accused Marquez of filing the motion merely to delay
the proceedings.[8]
In his Reply, Marquez insisted that he never
admitted that his signatures on the disbursement vouchers, purchase requests
and authorization requests were his and that his motion was not intended to
delay the proceedings.
In its Rejoinder, the prosecution reiterated its earlier
arguments and added that Caunan testified and identified the signatures of
Marquez in the subject vouchers. It
further noted that Marquez moved to refer the documents to the NBI only two and
a half (2 ½) years after the formal offer of said documents.
In the subject
The
motion for reconsideration of Marquez was likewise denied.
Aggrieved,
Marquez interposed this petition for certiorari raising this lone
ISSUE
THAT
THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT SANDIGANBAYAN - 5TH DIVISION COMMITTED GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT ISSUED
ITS RESOLUTIONS RESPECTIVELY DATED FEBRUARY 11, 2009 AND MAY 20, 2009 DENYING
THE PETITIONER’S MOTION TO REFER PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE FOR EXAMINATION BY THE
QUESTIONED DOCUMENTS SECTION OF THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION WHICH
DENIAL IS IN VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHT TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AND HIS TWIN CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW.
Those
availing of the remedy of certiorari must clearly show that the trial
court acted without jurisdiction
or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
By grave abuse of discretion, it means such capricious or whimsical exercise of
judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent and
gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform
a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as where the
power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and
hostility. In sum, for the extraordinary writ of certiorari to lie,
there must be capricious, arbitrary or whimsical exercise of power.[10]
Such
circumstance exists in this case.
One
of the most vital and precious rights accorded to an accused by the
Constitution is due process, which includes a fair and impartial trial and a
reasonable opportunity to present one’s defense. Under Section 14, Article III
of the 1987 Constitution, it is provided that:
(1) No
person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of
law.
(2) In
all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and
counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him,
to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to
face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and
the production
of evidence in his behalf.
However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of
the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear
is unjustifiable. (emphasis supplied)
In
this connection, it is well settled that due process in criminal proceedings requires
that (a) the court or tribunal trying the case is properly clothed with
judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it; (b) that
jurisdiction is lawfully acquired by it over the person of the accused; (c)
that the accused is given an opportunity to be heard; and (d) that
judgment is rendered only upon lawful hearing.
While
the Constitution does not specify the nature of this opportunity, by necessary
implication, it means that the accused should be allowed reasonable freedom to
present his defense if the courts are to give form and substance to this
guaranty. Should the trial court fail to accord an accused reasonable opportunity to submit evidence
in his defense, the exercise by the Court of its certiorari jurisdiction
is warranted as this amounts to a denial of due process.
In
this case, the defense interposed by the accused Marquez was that his signatures
in the disbursement vouchers, purchase requests and authorizations were forged. It
is hornbook rule that as a rule, forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved
by clear, positive and convincing evidence[11]
and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery.[12]
Thus,
Marquez bears the burden of submitting evidence to prove the fact that his
signatures were indeed forged. In order to be able to discharge his burden, he
must be afforded reasonable opportunity to present evidence to support his
allegation. This opportunity is the actual examination of the signatures he is
questioning by no less than the country’s premier investigative force – the
NBI. If he is denied such opportunity, his only evidence on this matter is
negative testimonial evidence which is generally considered as weak. And, he
cannot submit any other examination result because the signatures are on the
original documents which are in the control of either the prosecution or the
graft court.
At
any rate, any finding of the NBI will not be binding on the graft court. It will still be subject to its scrutiny and
evaluation in line with Section 22 of Rule 132. Nevertheless, Marquez should not be deprived
of his right to present his own defense.
How the prosecution, or even the court, perceives his defense to be is
irrelevant. To them, his defense may seem feeble and his strategy frivolous, but
he should be allowed to adduce evidence of his own choice. The court should not control how he will
defend himself as long as the steps to be taken will not be in violation of the
rules.
Contrary
to the assertion of the prosecution, this move of Marquez is not a mere
afterthought to delay the prosecution of the case. From the records, it
appears that as early as
Apparently, he did not abandon his quest. In his Omnibus Motion dated
If
this case has been delayed, it is because of the denial of the simple request
of Marquez. If it was granted in the
first instance, the trial of the case would have proceeded smoothly and would
have been over by now. If the Court were to deny this petition and Marquez would
be convicted for having failed to prove forgery, he could not be prevented from
crying that he was prevented from presenting evidence in his defense.
The
fact that Marquez did not raise this issue with the COA is immaterial and
irrelevant. His failure or omission to
do so may affect the appreciation and weight of his defense, but it should not
bar him from insisting on it during his turn to adduce evidence.
In
denying said motion, the SB-5th Division offered no valid explanation
other than the fact that, being the trial court, it may validly determine
forgery from its own independent examination of the documentary evidence. While it is true that the appreciation of
whether the signatures of Marquez are genuine or not is subject to the
discretion of the graft court, this discretion, by the very nature of things,
may rightly be exercised only after the evidence is submitted to the court at
the hearing. Evidence cannot properly be weighed if not exhibited or
produced before the court.[14] Only
after evidence is offered and admitted that the court can appreciate and
evaluate it. The prosecution had already
offered its evidence on the matter. The
court should not deny the same right to the defense.
The
fact that the documentary exhibits were already formally offered and duly
admitted by the anti-graft court cannot preclude an examination of the
signatures thereon by the defense. With proper handling by court personnel, this
can easily be accomplished by the NBI expert examiners.
In
the conduct of its proceedings, a court is given discretion in maintaining the delicate balance
between the demands of due process and the strictures of speedy trial on the
one hand, and the right of the State to prosecute crimes and rid society of
criminals on the other. Indeed,
both the State and the accused are entitled to due process. However,
the exercise of such discretion must be exercised judiciously, bearing in mind the
circumstances of each case, and the interests of substantial justice.
Thus, for having denied Marquez the
opportunity to be heard and to produce
evidence of his choice in his defense, the SB-5th Division committed grave abuse of discretion
warranting intervention from the Court. The anti-graft court should allow him to
refer the evidence of the prosecution to the Questioned Documents Section of
the NBI for examination at the soonest time possible and for the latter to immediately
conduct such examination and to submit the results to the court within a
reasonable time.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The
SO ORDERED.
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
A T T
E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
C E R
T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, p. 5
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Napoleon
E. Inoturan with Associate Justice Ma. Cristina G. Cortez-Estrada
and Associate Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo,
concurring; id. at 47-51.
[3]
[4]
[5]
Docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 27903-27905. Other graft cases filed against the
petitioner and other officials of the City of
[6] Rollo, pp. 154-159.
[7] Sec. 4. Judicial
admissions. — An admission, verbal or written, made by the party in the
course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The
admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable
mistake or that no such admission was made. (2a)
[8] Resolution, Sandiganbayan-5th
Division,
[9] Sec. 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. — The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. (23a)
[10] Salma v. Hon. Miro, G.R.
No. 168362,
[11]
Tenio-Obsequio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107967,
[12] Heirs of Severa P. Gregorio v. CA, G.R. No. 117609, 360 Phil. 753 (1998).
[13] Rollo, pp. 154-159.
[14] See Basco v. Rapatalo, A.M. No. RTJ-96-1335, 336 Phil. 214 (1997), citing Ramos v. Ramos, 45 Phil. 362 (1923).