Case Summary (G.R. No. 202664)
Trial and Remand: Conviction, Appeal, and Reopening for Petitioner’s Evidence
At the MTCC petitioner failed initially to present evidence after the prosecution rested; the MTCC rendered judgment of conviction. The RTC, on appeal, found a due process violation because petitioner had been denied the opportunity to present his evidence, vacated the MTCC conviction, and remanded the cases for reception of petitioner’s evidence.
Subpoena Request and Trial Court Orders
During the remanded proceedings petitioner sought subpoenas ad testificandum and duces tecum to compel Calas representatives (Vivian Deocampo or Danilo Yap) to appear and produce specific accounting and tax records for 1993–1999. The prosecution initially did not object, and Acting Judge Delfin ordered issuance of the subpoenas for the scheduled hearing.
Opposition to Production and MTCC Denial
Subsequently the prosecution opposed enforcement of the subpoenas, asserting that many specified documents for 1993 had been burned, that certain ledgers were not maintained, and that records were being computerized and were incomplete. Calas argued the documents were immaterial and irrelevant to the BP 22 offenses. Presiding Judge Edward B. Contreras denied the subpoenas on grounds of immateriality and that production would unduly delay the criminal proceedings; his denial and motion for reconsideration were unsuccessful.
RTC and CA Review: Certiorari and Affirmance
Petitioner filed a certiorari petition to the RTC alleging grave abuse of discretion by Judge Contreras; the RTC dismissed the petition for failure to show such grave abuse. The Court of Appeals likewise dismissed petitioner’s appeal and denied reconsideration. The case reached the Supreme Court on petition for review under Rule 45.
Legal Issue Presented
The primary legal question was whether the denial of petitioner’s request for subpoenas ad testificandum and duces tecum violated the accused’s constitutional right to present evidence under Article III, Section 14(2) of the 1987 Constitution, and whether the lower courts committed reversible error or grave abuse of discretion in refusing to order production.
Requisite Legal Standards for Subpoena Duces Tecum
The Court reiterated the settled requisites before a subpoena duces tecum may issue: (1) the documents must be prima facie relevant to the subject controversy (relevancy test); and (2) the documents must be described with sufficient definiteness to permit ready identification (definiteness test). The subpoena must call for specific documents that are likely to be relevant, and it must not be used as a general discovery device or fishing expedition.
Application of Standards to the Request: Definiteness and Relevancy
The Court found that petitioner satisfied the definiteness requirement because the requested records were specifically described. However, petitioner failed to demonstrate prima facie relevancy. The gravamen of BP 22 is the issuance of a worthless check; the essential elements are issuance of the check, knowledge of insufficiency of funds at the time of issue, and subsequent dishonor—offenses consummated by issuance and dishonor absent valid cause. The petitioner relied on temporary receipts (yellow pad slips) issued and validated by Calas as evidence of payment; these receipts were in the record and directly pertinent to petitioner’s defense of payment. Consequently, the voluminous accounting and tax records for 1994–1999 were not shown to be necessary to rebut the presumption under BP 22 or to prove petitioner’s defense.
Rejection of Fishing Expedition and Concern for Undue Delay
The Court agreed with the appellate court that compelling production of broad ledgers, audited statements and tax returns for years after the 1993 transactions would amount to a fishing expedition and would only serve to delay trial. Documents pertaining to later years could not reasonably be expected to reflect or prove payment for transactions that occurred in 1993, especial
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 202664)
Title, Citation and Court
- Reported as 500 Phil. 275, Third Division, G.R. No. 158275, June 28, 2005.
- Decision authored by Justice Garcia.
- Case is an appeal by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court directed to issuances of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 66038: Decision dated 20 August 2002 (dismissing petitioner’s appeal) and Resolution dated 12 May 2003 (denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration).
Parties
- Petitioner: Domingo Roco.
- Private respondent: Calas Poultry Supply Corporation (referred to in places as Calas Corporation), a domestic corporation controlled and managed by Danilo Yap.
- Judicial respondent: Hon. Edward B. Contreras (Presiding Judge of the MTCC who denied the subpoena request).
- Respondent government party: People of the Philippines.
Underlying Transactions and Documentary Particulars (Checks)
- Petitioner Domingo Roco engaged in buying and selling dressed chicken.
- In 1993, petitioner purchased dressed chicken from Calas Corporation.
- Petitioner issued five (5) checks payable to Calas Corporation drawn on his account with the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (PCIB) with these particulars:
- Check No. 004502, Date: 26 April 1993, Amount: P329,931.40.
- Check No. 004503, Date: 4 May 1993, Amount: P319,314.40.
- Check No. 004507, Date: 19 May 1993, Amount: P380,560.20.
- Check No. 004511, Date: 26 May 1993, Amount: P258,660.20.
- Check No. 004523, Date: 22 May 1993, Amount: P141,738.55.
- Calas Corporation deposited these checks with PCIB but the bank dishonored them for being drawn against a closed account.
Criminal Proceedings and Case Numbers
- Calas Corporation filed criminal complaints vs. petitioner for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22, the Bouncing Checks Law).
- After preliminary investigation, five (5) informations were filed before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Roxas City: Criminal Cases Nos. 94-2172-12 to 94-2176-12.
- All cases were raffled to Branch 2 of the MTCC.
BIR Denunciation, Investigation and Findings
- Before trial commenced, petitioner filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) at Iloilo City a denunciation letter against Calas Corporation alleging violation of Section 258 in relation to Section 263 of the National Internal Revenue Code for failing to issue commercial invoices on sales.
- BIR investigation found that Calas Corporation’s sales on account were unavoidable and that issuance of Sales Invoices was deferred until payment in full by customers.
- With respect to petitioner’s sales invoices, BIR found they could not be issued because petitioner’s checks had been dishonored by PCIB for being drawn on a closed account.
- BIR concluded there was no prima facie evidence of tax evasion against Calas Corporation.
MTCC Trial History and Remand by RTC
- After prosecution rested at trial, the MTCC declared the cases submitted for decision due to petitioner’s failure to adduce evidence.
- MTCC later rendered judgment of conviction against petitioner.
- Petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) arguing deprivation of due process because MTCC rendered judgment without allowing him to present evidence.
- RTC vacated the MTCC decision and remanded the cases to MTCC for reception of petitioner’s evidence.
Petitioner’s Subpoena Request (11 March 1999)
- While remanded cases were pending, petitioner filed with MTCC a “Request for Issuance of Subpoena Ad Testificandum and Subpoena Duces Tecum” requiring Vivian Deocampo or Danilo Yap, or their authorized representatives, to appear and testify on 19 May 1999 and to bring documents, records and books of accounts for years 1993–1999, specifically:
- a) Sales Journal for the year 1993;
- b) Accounts Receivable Journal for the year 1993;
- c) Sales Ledger for the year 1993;
- d) Accounts Receivable Ledger for the year 1993 (or in its absence, Accounts Receivable Ledger for 1994–1999);
- e) Audited Income Statement for the years 1993–1998 and Income Statements as of February 1999;
- f) Audited Balance Sheet for the years 1993–1998 and Balance Sheet as of February 1999;
- g) Income Tax Returns for the years 1993–1997.
- The prosecution did not initially object to the request.
MTCC Orders and Prosecution’s Opposition
- On 19 May 1999, Acting Judge Geomer C. Delfin issued an order granting petitioner’s request and directed issuance of subpoenas.
- During trial on 14 July 1999, private prosecutor argued it was improper for the trial court to have directed issuance at that stage; petitioner asserted Judge Delfin’s order had become final.
- MTCC nonetheless issued an order allowing prosecution to file comment/opposition to the subpoena request.
- Prosecution’s opposition arguments included:
- Vivian Deocampo had previously testified (in another case) that certain documents sought for 1993 had been burned, specifically the Audited Income Statements (1993–1998 and Income Statement as of Feb. 1999), Audited Balance Sheets (1993–1998 and Balance Sheet as of Feb. 1999), and Income Tax Returns for 1993–1997.
- Sales Ledger for 1993 could not be produced because Calas Corporation did not maintain such ledger.
- Accounts Receivable Ledger for 1993, Income Statement for 1993, and Balance Sheet as of Feb. 1999 could not be produced because Calas Corporation recently computerized records and was still completing them.
- Calas Corporation itself contended that production of those documents was inappropriate as they were immaterial and irrelevant to the crimes charged.
MTCC Denial and Reasoning (Resolution dated 19 October 1999)
- Presiding Judge Edward B. Contreras denied petitioner’s subpoena request on the grounds that:
- (a) the requested