G.R. No. 115439-41 - People vs. Sandiganbayan

Case Summary (G.R. No. 115439-41)

Petitioner

The People of the Philippines (prosecution) moved to discharge respondent Generoso S. Sansaet as a state witness so he could testify against his co-accused in consolidated falsification of public documents cases.

Respondents

Respondents in the criminal actions included Ceferino S. Paredes, Jr., Mansueto V. Honrada, and Generoso S. Sansaet, who were charged with falsification of public documents. The Sandiganbayan denied the prosecution’s motion to discharge Sansaet as a state witness.

Key Dates

Relevant dates appearing in the record: falsification-related events and filings in the 1980s; Ombudsman resolution recommending falsification charges dated February 24, 1992; Sandiganbayan resolutions denying discharge dated December 22, 1993 and March 7, 1994; prosecution’s motion to discharge filed July 27, 1993; Supreme Court final disposition set aside the Sandiganbayan resolutions (opinion appears in 341 Phil. 503; decision rendered in 1998). Because the decision date is after 1990, the 1987 Constitution is the applicable constitutional framework.

Applicable Law

Primary procedural and evidentiary provisions invoked: Section 9, Rule 119, Rules of Court (discharge and use of an accused as state witness/particeps criminis); Section 24(b), Rule 130, Rules of Court (attorney-client privilege). The Court also relied on established doctrine concerning exceptions to privilege (communications in furtherance of future crimes and communications made in furtherance of a conspiracy or unlawful purpose are not privileged) and on precedents interpreting the criteria for discharge as a state witness.

Factual Background

Paredes obtained a free patent and certificate of title for a lot in Rosario Public Land Subdivision. The Director of Lands successfully sought cancellation on the ground that the lot was reserved as a school site; the trial court found fraud in Paredes’ application. Sansaet had represented Paredes in the civil action and related perjury and graft proceedings. During efforts to defeat a graft investigation and prosecution, documents purporting to show that Paredes had been arraigned in a perjury case (and transcripts of stenographic notes) were later alleged to have been simulated and certified as true copies by Honrada and then filed by Sansaet.

Prior Civil and Criminal Proceedings

After the land cancellation judgment and a municipal perjury information, a provincial fiscal was directed to move for dismissal on prescription grounds. The Tanodbayan recommended criminal prosecution for graft under R.A. No. 3019; Paredes sought to invoke double jeopardy based on alleged arraignment and dismissal of the perjury case. A graft case was eventually filed with the Sandiganbayan but was dismissed on prescription. Gelacio later complained to the Ombudsman asserting that the documents supporting the double jeopardy claim were falsified; the Ombudsman found probable cause for falsification charges against Honrada, Paredes, and Sansaet and filed separate informations, later consolidated for joint trial in the Sandiganbayan.

Allegations Concerning Fabrication and Sansaet’s Disavowal

Sansaet initially filed counter-affidavits but subsequently executed an “Affidavit of Explanations and Rectifications” in which he repudiated prior submissions and admitted that Paredes contrived to have the graft case dismissed by making it appear that an arraignment occurred. Sansaet disclosed that the falsified documents had been prepared in Paredes’ house and that he participated in their preparation and subsequent filing; he claimed inducement by Paredes and sought discharge as a state witness.

Ombudsman and Sandiganbayan Resolutions

The Ombudsman approved filing falsification charges and refused to discharge Sansaet as a state witness, reasoning that a lawyer of Sansaet’s stature would not unwittingly be induced to commit the crime and that privileged attorney-client communications might be implicated. The Sandiganbayan likewise denied the prosecution’s motion to discharge Sansaet, holding that the attorney-client relationship between Paredes and Sansaet produced privileged communications that barred Sansaet from testifying against Paredes without the latter’s consent.

Issues Presented for Supreme Court Review

The Supreme Court framed two principal issues: (1) whether the projected testimony of Sansaet is barred by the attorney-client privilege; and (2) whether Sansaet, in light of his admitted role, is eligible to be discharged and used as a state witness (particeps criminis) under Section 9, Rule 119.

Analysis — Attorney‑Client Privilege Exception

The Court held that the attorney-client privilege does not apply to communications made in the furtherance of a crime or to communications regarding a contemplated future offense. It found the relevant communications here to be confidential communications intended to facilitate the future falsification of documents. The Court emphasized that the privilege covers communications concerning past crimes confessed to counsel, but not communications made for purposes of planning or executing a future crime. The physical acts and words by which Paredes and Honrada, with Sansaet’s participation or presence, prepared falsified documents were communications in aid of an intended illegal act and therefore fall outside the protection of the privilege.

Analysis — Unlawful Purpose and Conspiracy Exception

The Court further held that communications made to an attorney in furtherance of an unlawful purpose do not attract privilege. Because Sansaet was a participant in the conspiracy to falsify public documents, the communications in question were intrinsically unlawful and thus not protected. The Court stressed that allowing a conspirator-attorney to invoke privilege to bar disclosure would permit a travesty—shielding the genesis of a crime by the attorney-client relationship—and that the law does not permit preservation of privilege where the communication itself furthers a crime.

Analysis — Eligibility as State Witness (Particeps Criminis)

On the requirements for discharge as a state witness under Section 9, Rule 119, the Court found that Sansaet satisfied the requisites: his testimony was necessary because no other direct eyewitness evidence existed; he expressed willingness to testify and detailed his expected testimony; his testimony could be substantially corroborated by identified prospective witnesses (Judge Ariño, prosecutors, Gelacio, Sangguniang Bayan members, and others); and he had no prior conviction involving moral turpitude.

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 115439-41)

Citation and Court

Reported at 341 Phil. 503; 94 OG No. 27, 4735 (July 16, 1998), En Banc; G.R. Nos. 115439-41, July 16, 1997.
Decision authored by Justice Regalado; unanimous resolution granting certiorari and setting aside the Sandiganbayan resolutions.
Justices Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Francisco and Panganiban, JJ., concurred; Hermosisima, Jr. and Torres, Jr., were on leave.

Parties and Roles

Petitioner: People of the Philippines (prosecution).
Respondents: Honorable Sandiganbayan (respondent court); private respondents Mansueto V. Honrada, Ceferino S. Paredes, Jr., and Generoso S. Sansaet.
Respondent Honrada: Clerk of Court and Acting Stenographer, First Municipal Circuit Trial Court, San Francisco-Bunawan-Rosario, Agusan del Sur (during relevant period).
Respondent Paredes: Former Provincial Attorney, later Governor of Agusan del Sur, and at time of decision a Congressman.
Respondent Sansaet: Practicing attorney; served repeatedly as counsel for Paredes in civil and criminal matters pertinent to this litigation.

Factual Background — Land Title and Civil Proceedings

In 1976 Paredes applied for a free patent over Lot No. 3097-A, Pls-67 of the Rosario Public Land Subdivision Survey; application approved and original certificate of title issued in his favor for property in the poblacion of San Francisco, Agusan del Sur.
In 1985 the Director of Lands filed Civil Case No. 512 for cancellation of Paredes’s patent and certificate of title on the ground that the land was designated and reserved as a school site in the subdivision survey.
The trial court (presided by Judge Carlo H. Lozada) rendered judgment nullifying the patent and title, finding Paredes had obtained the patent by fraudulent misrepresentations.
Sansaet acted as counsel for Paredes in the civil cancellation proceeding.

Subsequent Perjury and Related Criminal Procedures

Following the civil judgment, Sangguniang Bayan complaint and preliminary investigation led to an information for perjury (Criminal Case No. 1393) filed against Paredes in the First Municipal Circuit Trial Court of San Francisco-Rosario-Bunawan, Agusan del Sur (Presiding Judge Ciriaco AriAo).
On November 27, 1985, the Provincial Fiscal was directed by the Deputy Minister of Justice to move for dismissal of the perjury case on grounds including prescription; the perjury proceedings were terminated. Sansaet represented Paredes in this criminal case as well.

Tanodbayan Preliminary Investigation and Graft Charge

Paredes was later investigated by the Tanodbayan (Ombudsman’s predecessor) on charge that, by using his former position as Provincial Attorney to influence Bureau of Lands officials to favorably act on his application, he had violated Section 3(a) of R.A. No. 3019 (graft).
Sansaet again appeared as Paredes’s counsel during Tanodbayan proceedings.
On August 29, 1988, Tanodbayan issued a resolution recommending criminal prosecution of Paredes; Sansaet moved for reconsideration asserting, among other things, that the Tanodbayan action would constitute double jeopardy because earlier proceedings had been filed and dismissed after arraignment on the same facts.

Criminal Information in the Sandiganbayan and Dismissal

A graft criminal case was filed with the Sandiganbayan (Criminal Case No. 13800) charging Paredes with violation of Section 3(a), R.A. No. 3019.
A defense motion to quash was later granted by the Sandiganbayan in a resolution dated August 1, 1991, and the graft case was dismissed on the ground of prescription.

Allegation of Falsified Documents; Gelacio Complaint to Ombudsman

On January 23, 1990, Teofilo Gelacio, a taxpayer and initial complainant, sent a letter to the Ombudsman seeking investigation of Honrada, Paredes, and Sansaet for falsification of public documents.
Gelacio alleged that Honrada, in conspiracy with Paredes and Sansaet, simulated and certified as true copies a notice of arraignment dated July 1, 1985, and transcripts of stenographic notes purporting to be the arraignment stenographic record; these documents had been annexed to Paredes’s motion for reconsideration before the Tanodbayan to support a double jeopardy claim.
Gelacio submitted corroborative certifications: that no notice of arraignment was received by the Office of the Provincial Fiscal in connection with the perjury case; and a certification from Judge AriAo that the perjury case did not reach arraignment as action was suspended pending Department of Justice review.

Sansaet’s Repudiation and Affidavit of Explanations and Rectifications

Respondents filed counter-affidavits to Gelacio’s complaint.
Sansaet subsequently discarded and repudiated his counter-affidavit; in an Affidavit of Explanations and Rectifications he revealed:
- Paredes contrived to have the graft case dismissed on double jeopardy grounds by making it appear that the perjury case had been dismissed after arraignment.
- Documents later filed by Sansaet during preliminary investigation were prepared and falsified by Paredes and Honrada in Paredes’s house.
- Sansaet claimed he participated upon the instigation and inducement of Paredes.
- The falsification scheme was intended to secure Sansaet’s discharge as a government witness in the consolidated cases; the prosecution filed a motion for his discharge pursuant to their agreement.

Ombudsman’s Actions on Falsification Charges and State-Witness Discharge Proposal

On February 24, 1992, the Ombudsman approved filing falsification charges against the three private respondents.
The Ombudsman rejected the proposal to discharge Sansaet as a state witness, reasoning:
- Skepticism that a lawyer of Sansaet’s stature could be unwittingly induced to commit a crime absent deliberate intent.
- As Paredes’s counsel, Sansaet had control over case theory and evidence; his testimony/confession falls within privileged communications between lawyer and client and may be objected to at trial.
The Ombudsman refused to reconsider and elected to file separate informations for falsification against each respondent, resulting in three informations (Criminal Cases Nos. 17791–17793), later consolidated for joint trial in the Second Division of the Sandiganbayan.

Prosecution’s Motion for Discharge of Sansaet as State Witness; Sandiganbayan’s Denial

On July 27, 1993, the People filed a motion under Section 9, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court to discharge Generoso Sansaet as a state witness.
The prosecution argued that the requisites of Section 9, Rule 119 were satisfied and that, except for Sansaet’s eyewitness testimony, no direct evidence existed to prove the alleged falsification by Honrada and Paredes.
The Sandiganbayan denied the motion, reasoning that:
- A client-lawyer relationship existed between Paredes and Sansaet before, during, and after the period alleged.
- Given that relationship, facts and confidential matters surrounding the case must have been disclosed by Paredes to Sansaet;