Case Summary (G.R. No. 187912-14)
Key Dates
- COA audit period: 1996–1998
- Notices of Disallowance issued by COA Special Audit Team: post-1998
- Appeal denied by COA: date unspecified
- Indictments filed by Office of the Special Prosecutor: 2003
- Formal offer of evidence by prosecution: January 13, 2006
- Marquez’s first motion for document referral to NBI: November 24, 2003
- Omnibus Motion (including NBI referral request): April 1, 2008
- Motion to refer documents to NBI before 5th Division: July 4, 2008
- SB-5th Division Resolutions denying motion: February 11 and May 20, 2009
- Decision of the Supreme Court: January 31, 2011
Applicable Law
- 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III, Section 14 (due process, right to present evidence)
- Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), Section 3(e)
- Revised Rules of Court, Rule 129, Section 4 (judicial admissions)
- Revised Rules of Court, Rule 132, Section 22 (proof of handwriting)
- Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (certiorari, prohibition, mandamus)
Factual Background
The COA Special Audit Team discovered that Marquez and Caunan bypassed public bidding to purchase thousands of rounds of ammunition at grossly inflated prices from VMY Trading, an unregistered dealer. COA issued Notices of Disallowance, and subsequent appeals by Marquez and Caunan to COA were denied.
Indictment and Pre-Arraignment Motions
The Office of the Special Prosecutor found probable cause to charge both officials under Section 3(e) of RA 3019. Before arraignment, Marquez claimed that his signatures on disbursement vouchers and purchase requests were forged and sought NBI examination and reinvestigation—requests denied by the OSP.
Trial Proceedings Before the Sandiganbayan
Raffled to the 4th Division, the prosecution presented five witnesses, including COA auditors and PNP firearms experts, along with documentary evidence (vouchers, requests, authorizations). All exhibits were admitted on March 22, 2006. Caunan testified in her defense; Marquez filed an Omnibus Motion seeking the inhibition of two justices and NBI referral of documents.
Referral Motion and Prosecution’s Opposition
After recusal of two justices, the case moved to the 5th Division. On July 4, 2008, Marquez renewed his motion to send documents to the NBI’s Questioned Documents Section, alleging forgery of his signatures. The prosecution opposed, arguing (a) the documents had already been admitted; (b) Marquez never asserted forgery during the COA audit or OMB proceedings; and (c) under Rule 129, Section 4, he was estopped from contradicting prior admissions.
Sandiganbayan 5th Division’s Denial
In its February 11, 2009 Resolution, the 5th Division denied the referral, citing Rule 132, Section 22 to hold that the court could determine forgery through its own examination and that expert opinion was not indispensable. A May 20, 2009 resolution likewise denied reconsideration.
Issue for Certiorari
Marquez petitioned for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, contending that the denial of his motion violated his constitutional right to due process and to present evidence by arbitrarily depriving him of expert examination of allegedly forged signatures.
Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis
The Court applied the 1987 Constitution, emphasizing the accused’s right to a fair trial and reasonable opportunity to present one’s defense (Art. III, Sec. 14). Certiorari lies only to correct grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction—defined as arbitrary, capricious action or evasion of a positive duty.
Right to Present Evidence and Burden of Proof
Forgery, never presumed, requires proof by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, and the party alleging it bears the burden. To discharge this burden, Marquez must have a reasonable opportunity to submit his own expert evidence—here, examination by the NBI. Denial of that opportunity reduces his defense to unsubstantiated negative testimony.
Discretion of the Trial Court Versus Accused’s Rights
Although the graft court may independently examine
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 187912-14)
Facts of the Case
- Joey P. Marquez was City Mayor and Chairman of the Bids and Awards Committee of Parañaque City from 1996 to 1998.
- The Commission on Audit (COA) Special Audit Team found several anomalies in the procurement of thousands of rounds of ammunition, purchased through personal canvass without public bidding, from VMY Trading—a company not registered as an arms and ammunition dealer.
- COA issued Notices of Disallowance for the overpriced purchases. Marquez and Ofelia C. Caunan sought reconsideration and later appealed to the COA, all of which were denied.
- The Office of the Ombudsman found probable cause to charge Marquez and Caunan with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and filed three informations in the Sandiganbayan (Criminal Case Nos. 27903–27905).
Procedural History
- November 24, 2003: Before arraignment, Marquez first sought referral of disbursement vouchers, purchase requests, and authorization requests to the NBI, alleging forged signatures. The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) denied this.
- January 13, 2006: Prosecution formally offered documentary evidence Exhibits “A” to “FFFF,” all admitted by the Sandiganbayan on March 22, 2006.
- April 1, 2008: Marquez filed an Omnibus Motion before the Fourth Division of the Sandiganbayan seeking inhibition of two justices and referral of documents to the NBI; the justices inhibited themselves but did not act on the referral request.
- May 20, 2008: The Fourth Division justices recused and the cases were raffled to the Fifth Division.
- July 4, 2008: Marquez filed another Motion to Refer Prosecution’s Evidence for Examination by the NBI’s Questioned Documents Section.
- February 11, 2009 & May 20, 2009: The Fifth Division denied Marquez’s motion and his motion for reconsideration, prompting the present certiorari petition to the Supreme Court.
Motion to Refer Documents to the NBI
- Marquez alleged that his signatures on the disbursement vouchers, purchase requests, and authorizations were forged.
- He repeatedly sought expert examination by the NBI’s Questioned Documents Section at the OSP stage, pre‐arraignment, and at both Sandiganbayan divisions.
- All requests were denied on grounds that the court could determine forgery through its own independent examination under Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.