Case Summary (G.R. No. 103497)
Procedural History at Trial and MTCC Rulings
Five separate informations were docketed before the MTCC, Roxas City. After the prosecution rested, the MTCC declared the cases submitted but later convicted Roco without allowing him to present evidence. On appeal, the RTC vacated the conviction and remanded for the reception of evidence. During the remanded trial, Roco moved for subpoenas ad testificandum and duces tecum to compel Calas representatives to testify and produce corporate accounting records from 1993–1999. The MTCC, first Acting Judge Delfin and later Presiding Judge Contreras, denied the request as immaterial and delaying.
Remedies at the RTC and CA
Roco filed a petition for certiorari before the RTC, alleging grave abuse of discretion by Judge Contreras. The RTC dismissed the petition for failure to show jurisdictional defect. On appeal via Rule 45, the Court of Appeals likewise dismissed Roco’s petition and denied his motion for reconsideration, affirming the lower courts’ denial of subpoenas.
Legal Standards for Subpoena Duces Tecum
Under established jurisprudence, issuance of a subpoena duces tecum requires:
- Relevancy – the requested documents must be prima facie relevant to the controversy;
- Definiteness – the documents must be clearly and specifically described.
A subpoena will not be enforced for a general “fishing expedition.”
Supreme Court Analysis on Relevancy and Definiteness
The Supreme Court found that Roco satisfied the definiteness requirement by precisely describing the requested ledgers, statements, and tax returns. However, he failed to establish their relevancy to his defense of payment under BP 22. The offense under BP 22 is complete upon issuance of a dishonored check; only timely payment within five banking days can rebut the presumption of knowledge of insufficiency. Temporary receipts issued by Calas, validated by the corporation, already evidenced Roco’s defense of payment. Extended financial records from subsequent years (1994–1999) could not affect the 1993 transaction and, accordingly, were irrelevant.
Constitutional Right to Present Evidence
While the 1987 Constitution (Art. III, Sec. 14[2]) guarantees an accused’s right to present evidence, this right is not unlimited. Cour
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 103497)
Facts
- Domingo Roco was in the business of buying and selling dressed chicken.
- In 1993, he purchased his supply from Calas Poultry Supply Corporation, managed by Danilo Yap.
- Roco issued five (5) checks to Calas Corporation, drawn on Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (PCIB), all later dishonored for being drawn against a closed account:
• Check No. 004502, 26 April 1993, ₱329,931.40
• Check No. 004503, 4 May 1993, ₱319,314.40
• Check No. 004507, 19 May 1993, ₱380,560.20
• Check No. 004511, 26 May 1993, ₱258,660.20
• Check No. 004523, 22 May 1993, ₱141,738.55 - Calas Corporation filed five (5) criminal complaints under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) before the MTCC, Roxas City (Crim. Cases Nos. 94-2172-12 to 94-2176-12).
- Roco filed a denunciation with the BIR alleging Calas evaded tax by not issuing sales invoices; BIR found no prima facie evidence of tax evasion.
MTCC Proceedings
- Trial commenced; after the prosecution rested, the MTCC declared the cases submitted because Roco did not present evidence, then rendered a conviction.
- The RTC vacated the MTCC’s decision, remanding the cases for the reception of Roco’s evidence.
Subpoena Request
- On 11 March 1999, during remanded trial, Roco filed a “Request for Issuance of Subpoena Ad Testificandum and Subpoena Duces Tecum,” directing Vivian Deocampo or Danilo Yap (or their representatives) to appear on 19 May 1999 and bring:
• Sales Journal (1993)
• Accounts Receivable Journal (1993)
• Sales Ledger (1993)
• Accounts Receivable Ledger (1993) or, if unavailable, those for 1994–1999
• Audited Income Statements (1993–1998) and interim statement as of February 1999
• Audited Balance Sheets (1993–1998) and interim sheet as of February 1999
• Income Tax Returns (1993–1997) - The prosecution initially did not object.
MTCC Denial
- 19 May 1999: Acting Judge Geomer C. Delfin granted the request and ordered issuance of subpoenas.
- 14 July 1999: Private prosecutor opposed