Case Summary (G.R. No. 185729-32)
Relevant Background
Homero A. Mercado served as President of JAM Liner, Inc., while the other respondents were officials from the Department of Finance (DOF) who were involved in the alleged issuance of Tax Credit Certificate 7711 and Certificate 7708 in 1996, though the company did not qualify for these credits. Mercado sought immunity as a state witness from the Department of Justice (DOJ) in 2000, which was granted, leading to the submission of charges against him and other respondents before the Sandiganbayan.
Legal Proceedings
Following the grant of immunity from the DOJ, the Ombudsman initiated charges against Mercado and the other respondents. The Ombudsman filed a motion seeking Mercado's discharge from criminal information to allow him to testify against the other accused, citing his cooperation and the necessity of his testimony. However, the Sandiganbayan denied this motion, reasoning that the prosecution had not met the requisite standards under Section 17, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court for declaring Mercado a state witness.
Central Issue
The pivotal question in this case is whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in rejecting the immunity provided to Mercado by the Ombudsman and subsequently declining to discharge him from the criminal information as a state witness.
Court's Ruling
In its ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized that the Sandiganbayan's denial hinged primarily on the procedural criteria established for state witness discharge as per Rule 119. Although it acknowledged that the immunity granted by the Ombudsman was significant, the Sandiganbayan maintained that the prosecution needed to demonstrate compliance with the established legal standards, including the absolute necessity of Mercado’s testimony and availability of corroborative evidence.
Evaluation of Evidence
The Sandiganbayan expressed doubts about the necessity of Mercado's testimony, citing the presence of other direct evidence. However, the Supreme Court countered this perspective, indicating that Mercado’s testimony could play a critical role in elucidating the context and details surrounding the fraudulent issuance of the tax credit certificates, thereby not merely reiterating facts already supported by documents but providing unique insights.
Prosecutorial Discretion
The court recognized that the grant of immunity is not an inherent judicial function but one vested in the Ombudsman and the Secretary of Justice. It further stated that the determination of who can be a state witness lies primarily with
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 185729-32)
Background of the Case
- The case involves the issuance of two Tax Credit Certificates (TCCs) to JAM Liner, Inc., which were later investigated and found to be fraudulent by the Presidential Task Force 156 under then President Joseph E. Estrada.
- The principal respondent, Homero A. Mercado, served as the President of JAM Liner, Inc.
- Other respondents included Department of Finance (DOF) officials: Antonio A. Belicena, Uldarico P. Andutan Jr., Raul C. De Vera, and Rosanna P. Diala, all formerly assigned at the DOF’s One-Stop Shop Inter-Agency Tax Credit and Drawback Center.
- In 2000, Mercado sought immunity as a state witness from the Department of Justice (DOJ) to testify against a criminal syndicate involved in the tax credit scam.
Immune Agreement and Charges
- Mercado’s application for immunity was granted by the DOJ on June 5, 2000.
- Subsequently, the Ombudsman charged Mercado and the other respondents with violations of Section 3(j) of Republic Act (R.A.) 3019 and two counts of falsification under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.
- The charges were based on the illegal approval and issuance of TCCs—one for P7,350,444.00 and another for P4,410,265.50—despite JAM Liner, Inc. not qualifying for such credits.
Motion for Discharge
- Mercado filed a motion for reconsideration before the Ombudsman, citing the DOJ's grant of immunity.
- The Ombudsman responded favorably, executing an Immunity Agreement with Mercado on September 4, 2003, which required him to produce documents and testify ag