Title
Marquez vs. Sandiganbayan
Case
G.R. No. 187912-14
Decision Date
Jan 31, 2011
Parañaque officials accused of graft over overpriced ammo procurement; Supreme Court ruled denial of NBI signature examination violated due process.
petition
certiorari
prohibition

Case Summary (G.R. No. 187912-14)

Factual Background

The COA Special Audit Team audited selected transactions and purchases of walis ting-ting for the City of Parañaque for the years 1996 to 1998 and found anomalies in procurements involving Joey P. Marquez, then City Mayor and Chairman of the Bids and Awards Committee, and Ofelia C. Caunan, Head of the General Services Office. COA found that thousands of rounds of various-caliber ammunition were procured by personal canvass from VMY Trading, a vendor not registered as an arms and ammunitions dealer, at grossly overpriced prices. The COA issued Notices of Disallowances for the overpriced ammunition. Marquez and Caunan sought administrative reconsideration with COA and then appealed, but COA denied relief.

Administrative and Ombudsman Proceedings

At the Office of the Ombudsman, Marquez and Caunan filed a Joint Counter Affidavit with the Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation Bureau asserting the propriety of the transactions and noting the pendency of their COA appeal. The Office of the Special Prosecutor found probable cause to charge them with violation of Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019 and filed three informations docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 27903–27905 in the Sandiganbayan.

Criminal Informations and Trial Commencement

The informations were raffled to the Sandiganbayan Fourth Division. The prosecution presented five witnesses including a COA state auditor and PNP firearms official, and offered documentary evidence comprising disbursement vouchers, purchase requests and authorization requests. The prosecution formally offered exhibits A to FFFF on January 13, 2006, which the Sandiganbayan admitted on March 22, 2006. After the prosecution rested, Caunan testified and began her defense.

Defense Motion to Refer to the NBI

Starting November 24, 2003, and reiterated in an Omnibus Motion dated April 1, 2008 and again in a Motion filed July 4, 2008 before the Fifth Division, Marquez alleged that his signatures on the questioned vouchers and requests were forged and sought referral of those documents to the Questioned Documents Section of the National Bureau of Investigation for examination and reinvestigation.

Prosecution’s Opposition

The prosecution opposed the referral. It noted that the documentary exhibits had already been offered and admitted in 2006. The prosecution relied on Section 4, Rule 129 to argue that admissions made during proceedings do not require proof and may be contradicted only by showing palpable mistake. It pointed out that Marquez never asserted forgery during the COA audit or in his Joint Counter Affidavit with the Ombudsman, nor in his COA motions in May and July 2003. The prosecution also emphasized that Ofelia C. Caunan had identified Marquez’s signatures and charged that the motion was a dilatory tactic filed two and a half years after the formal offer of evidence.

Sandiganbayan’s Rulings

By Resolution dated February 11, 2009, the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division denied Marquez’s motion. The division reasoned that, under Section 22, Rule 132, the court may determine the genuineness of handwriting by its own comparison and that expert opinion, while helpful, is neither mandatory nor indispensable. The division denied reconsideration in its May 20, 2009 Resolution.

Issues Presented in the Petition

In his petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, Marquez contended that the Sandiganbayan-5th Division committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by denying his motion to refer the prosecution’s evidence to the NBI. He argued that the denial violated his constitutional right to due process, his right to present evidence, and his right to equal protection.

Supreme Court’s Standards for Certiorari and Due Process

The Court reiterated the narrow scope of certiorari relief: petitioners must show that the trial court acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse entails a capricious, arbitrary or whimsical exercise of judgment. The Court then recited constitutional protections under Section 14, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, including the accused’s right to be heard and to have compulsory process for production of evidence in his behalf, and held that due process requires a reasonable opportunity to present a defense.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on the Right to Present Evidence and Forgery

The Court observed that Marquez’s defense at trial was that his signatures on the questioned documents were forged. The Court stated the settled rule that forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence and that the burden to prove forgery lies on the party alleging it. The Court held that to discharge that burden Marquez must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence to support his allegation, including examination of the original questioned signatures by expert examiners. The Court emphasized that any finding by the NBI would not bind the Sandiganbayan, but that denying Marquez the opportunity to obtain an expert examination would reduce his proof to negative testimonial evidence, which is generally weak. The Court further found no persuasive ground to treat the motion as a mere afterthought or dilatory device given that Marquez had sought referral as early as 2003 and had repeated the request in 2008.

Court’s Assessment of the Sandiganbayan’s Exercise of Discretion

The Court accepted that the trial court retains discretion to determine genuineness of handwriting, but held that such discretion may be properly exercised only after the defense had been allowed to submit and have examined the evidence it relied upon. The Court reasoned that evidence cannot be properly weighed if it has not been exhibited or produced before the court, and that admission of prosecution exhibits in itself does not preclude a defendant from seeking expert examination of signatures on those originals

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms