G.R. No. 187912-14 - Marquez vs. Sandiganbayan

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

Factual Background

A Commission on Audit (COA) Special Audit Team audited selected transactions of Parañaque City for 1996–1998 and discovered anomalies involving purchases of large quantities of ammunition. The audit found that procurement was effected by personal canvass without public bidding, transactions were allegedly grossly overpriced, and the supplier (VMY Trading) was not registered as an arms and ammunitions dealer with the appropriate agencies.

COA Findings and Administrative Remedies

COA issued Notices of Disallowance for the overpriced ammunition purchases. Marquez and Caunan sought reconsideration at COA and subsequently appealed but were denied relief. These administrative developments were followed by criminal charges.

Ombudsman Investigation and Informations

The Office of the Ombudsman, through the Office of the Special Prosecutor, found probable cause to file three informations against Marquez and Caunan for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. Marquez and Caunan filed a joint counter-affidavit asserting propriety of the transactions and noting the pending COA appeal.

Trial Court Proceedings and Prosecution Evidence

The criminal cases were raffled initially to the Sandiganbayan Fourth Division. The prosecution presented five witnesses including a COA state auditor, city official, PNP Firearms and Explosives Division officer, and a private supplier. Documentary exhibits—disbursement vouchers, purchase requests, and authorization requests—were formally offered on January 13, 2006 (Exhibits “A” to “FFFF”) and admitted by the Sandiganbayan on March 22, 2006.

Defense Allegation of Forgery and Motions

Marquez consistently asserted that his signatures on the questioned documents were forged. He sought referral of the prosecution’s documentary evidence to the NBI for handwriting examination as early as November 24, 2003, and again in an omnibus motion (April 1, 2008) and a dedicated motion to refer (July 4, 2008). He also moved for inhibition of certain Justices; those Justices later recused, and the cases were reassigned to the Sandiganbayan 5th Division.

Prosecution’s Opposition to Referral

The prosecution opposed referral, arguing in essence that (a) the documentary evidence had already been formally offered and admitted in 2006, (b) Marquez did not assert forgery during the COA proceedings or in his counter-affidavit to the Ombudsman, and (c) Marquez’s allegations were a belated attempt to delay the trial. The prosecution invoked Section 4, Rule 129 regarding judicial admissions and noted that Caunan had identified Marquez’s signatures on the vouchers.

Sandiganbayan 5th Division’s Ruling

By resolution dated February 11, 2009, the Sandiganbayan 5th Division denied Marquez’s motion to refer the documents to the NBI. The court reasoned, citing Section 22 of Rule 132, that while expert handwriting opinion may be helpful, it is neither mandatory nor indispensable because the court can independently determine forgery. Marquez’s motion for reconsideration was denied on May 20, 2009.

Petition for Certiorari: Legal Standard for Intervention

Marquez filed a petition for certiorari asserting grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by the Sandiganbayan 5th Division in denying his motion. The Supreme Court summarized the standard: certiorari will lie only where the trial court acted without jurisdiction or with patent and gross abuse of discretion—an arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to evasion of a positive duty.

Constitutional Right to Due Process and to Present Defense

The Court emphasized the constitutional guarantees under Section 14, Article III of the 1987 Constitution: due process, presumption of innocence, right to be heard by counsel, and the right to compulsory process to secure the production of evidence in one’s behalf. Due process in criminal proceedings requires (a) proper exercise of judicial power by the tribunal, (b) lawful acquisition of jurisdiction over the accused, (c) an opportunity for the accused to be heard, and (d) judgment only upon lawful hearing. This constitutional framework entails a reasonable freedom for the accused to present his chosen defense.

Burden of Proof on Allegations of Forgery

The Court reiterated the hornbook rule that forgery is not presumed and must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, with the burden of proof on the party alleging forgery. To meet this burden, the accused must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence—including, where pertinent, expert examination of the signatures in the questioned documents.

Court’s Analysis on Denial Constituting Grave Abuse

The Supreme Court found grave abuse in the denial because th

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

Citation and Case Identification

Reported in 656 Phil. 177, SECOND DIVISION, G.R. Nos. 187912-14, January 31, 2011.
Decision authored by Justice MENDOZA.
Petition: certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with prayer for temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction.
Parties: Joey P. Marquez (petitioner) v. The Sandiganbayan 5th Division and the Office of the Special Prosecutor (respondents).
Challenged orders: 1) February 11, 2009 Resolution of the Sandiganbayan 5th Division in Criminal Case Nos. 27903–27905; and 2) May 20, 2009 Resolution denying motion for reconsideration.

Summary of Relief Sought

Petitioner sought review of SB-5th Division’s denial of his motion to refer prosecution’s documentary evidence to the Questioned Documents Section of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for examination.
The petition assailed the denial as grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and as violative of petitioner’s rights to present evidence, due process, and equal protection.

Relevant Procedural and Background Facts

The Commission on Audit (COA) Special Audit Team conducted a Report on the Audit of Selected Transactions and Walis Ting-ting for the City of Parañaque for years 1996–1998.
COA discovered several anomalies involving Marquez (then City Mayor and Chairman of the Bids and Awards Committee) and Ofelia C. Caunan (Head, General Services Office).
Findings included procurement, by personal canvass and without public bidding, 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 PNP Firearms and Explosives Division or the Department of Trade and Industry.
COA Special Audit Team issued Notices of Disallowances for the overpriced ammunitions.
Marquez and Caunan sought reconsideration with COA; denied. They appealed to the COA but relief was denied.

Administrative and Ombudsman Proceedings

At the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB), Marquez and Caunan filed a Joint Counter Affidavit with the Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation Bureau, insisting on the propriety of the transactions and noting the pendency of their COA appeal.
The OMB, through the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), found probable cause to indict Marquez and Caunan for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and filed three informations (docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 27903–27905).
The cases were raffled initially to the Sandiganbayan Fourth Division (SB-4th Division).

Early Defense Requests and Denials

On November 24, 2003, before arraignment and alleging discovery of forged signatures, Marquez sought referral of disbursement vouchers, purchase requests, and authorization requests to the NBI and sought reinvestigation. OSP denied these requests. (Rollo, pp. 154–159.)

Evidence Presented by Prosecution at Sandiganbayan

Prosecution witnesses (five): 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; 5) Emerito L. Lejano, President, Guns Empire.
Documentary evidence presented: disbursement vouchers, purchase requests, authorization requests.
On January 13, 2006, the prosecution filed a Formal Offer of Evidence consisting of Exhibits “A” to “FFFF,” and sub-markings.
All evidence offered by the prosecution was admitted by the Sandiganbayan on March 22, 2006.

Defense Presentation and Motions Before SB-4th Division

After the prosecution rested, Caunan testified and partly presented defense evidence.
Marquez, by Omnibus Motion dated April 1, 2008, moved for: inhibition of Associate Justices Gregory Ong and Jose Hernandez, and referral of the questioned documents to the NBI.
Associate Justices Hernandez and Ong inhibited themselves; the request for referral of questioned documents to the NBI was not acted upon.
On May 20, 2008, Justices Ong and Hernandez recused; the cases were then raffled to the SB-5th Division.

Motion to Refer Evidence to NBI (SB-5th Division)

On July 4, 2008, Marquez filed Motion to Refer Prosecution’s Evidence for Examination by the Questioned Documents Section of the NBI, reiterating his claim that his purported signatures on the vouchers were forged.

Prosecution’s Opposition and Contentions

The prosecution argued:
- Documentary exhibits had been formally offered in January 2006 and duly admitted.
- Marquez never raised forgery during the COA audit investigation, in his Joint Counter-Affidavit with the OMB, nor in motions filed with the COA (verified Motion for Reconsideration dated May 29, 2003 and Supplemental Motion dated July 1, 2003).
- Reliance by Marquez on the competence of subordinates in his pleadings meant no “palpable mistake” and estopped him from alleging forgery, invoking Section 4, Rule 129 (judicial admissions).
- The motion was filed merely to delay proceedings.
The prosecution also emphasized that Caunan testified and identified Marquez’s signatures in the subject vouchers, and stressed the two-and-a-half-year delay after formal offer of the documents.

Marquez’s Reply and Reaffirmation

Marquez replied that he never admitted that the signatures were his and that his motion was not intended to delay trial.
The prosecution reiterated its positions in rejoinder.

Sandiganbayan 5th Division Resolutions

February 11, 2009 Resolution: SB-5th Division denied Marquez’s motion to refer the prosecution’s evidence to the NBI’s Questioned Documents Section.
- The anti-graft court cited Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, reasoning that res