Case Digest (G.R. No. 158275)
Facts:
Domingo Roco v. Hon. Edward B. Contreras, People of the Philippines and Cals Poultry Supply Corporation, G.R. No. 158275, June 28, 2005, Supreme Court Third Division, Garcia, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Domingo Roco was engaged in buying and selling dressed chicken and, in 1993, purchased supplies from private respondent Cals Poultry Supply Corporation. To pay for those purchases he issued five checks (Nos. 004502, 004503, 004507, 004511 and 004523) drawn on his account with the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (amounts listed in the records). The checks were deposited by Cals Corporation but were dishonored by PCIB for being drawn against a closed account. Cals Corporation filed five criminal informations against Roco for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22, the Bouncing Checks Law) before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Roxas City (Crim. Cases Nos. 94-2172-12 to 94-2176-12, raffled to Branch 2).
While the criminal proceedings were pending, Roco filed a denunciation with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) against Cals Corporation claiming failure to issue commercial invoices; the BIR investigated and found no prima facie evidence of tax evasion because sales-on-account practices and the dishonor of Roco’s checks precluded issuance of invoices at the time. Trial before the MTCC proceeded; the MTCC initially submitted the cases for decision after the prosecution rested and later rendered judgment of conviction. On appeal the Regional Trial Court (RTC) vacated the MTCC decision and remanded the cases for reception of the accused’s evidence.
On March 11, 1999, during the remanded proceedings, petitioner filed a Request for Issuance of Subpoena Ad Testificandum and Subpoena Duces Tecum to compel Cals Corporation’s officers (Vivian Deocampo or Danilo Yap or their representatives) to appear on May 19, 1999 and produce specified books and records (sales journals, accounts receivable journals/ledgers, audited income statements and balance sheets for various years, and income tax returns for 1993–1997). The prosecution did not initially object and Judge Geomer C. Delfin of the MTCC issued an order directing issuance of the subpoenas on May 19, 1999. Later, however, on July 14, 1999, the prosecution opposed the subpoenas, asserting certain documents were burned, some ledgers were not maintained, and others were being computerized; Cals Corporation contended the documents were immaterial and irrelevant.
In a resolution dated October 19, 1999, MTCC Presiding Judge Edward B. Contreras denied the request for subpoenas on grounds of immateriality and the risk of undue delay; his denial of reconsideration followed. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with plea for preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order in the RTC (SP Case No. V-7489), alleging grave abuse of discretion by Judge Contreras; the RTC, in a resolution dated October 18, 2000, denied due course to and dismissed the petition for failure to show grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and denied reconsideration.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals via certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 66038). The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated August 20, 2002, dismissed the peti...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the MTCC, the RTC, and the Court of Appeals commit reversible error or grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s request for subpoenas ad testificandum and duces tecum (a procedural/jurisdictional question)?
- Did the denial of the subpoenas violate petitioner’s constitutional right to due process, specifically his right to present witnesses and evidence under Article III, Section 14(2) of the 1987 Constitution, and...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)