Case Summary (G.R. No. 171056)
Factual Background
Petitioner bought and sold dressed chicken and purchased supplies from Cals Poultry Supply Corporation in 1993. He issued five checks to Cals Corporation drawn on his Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank account with the following particulars: Check No. 004502 dated April 26, 1993 for P329,931.40; Check No. 004503 dated May 4, 1993 for P319,314.40; Check No. 004507 dated May 19, 1993 for P380,560.20; Check No. 004511 dated May 26, 1993 for P258,660.20; and Check No. 004523 dated May 22, 1993 for P141,738.55. Cals Corporation deposited the checks but the drawee bank dishonored them because the account was closed. Cals Corporation thereafter filed criminal complaints for violation of BP 22.
Administrative Inquiry by the BIR
While the criminal cases were pending, petitioner filed a denunciation with the Bureau of Internal Revenue at Iloilo alleging Cals Corporation’s failure to issue commercial invoices and tax evasion in violation of Sec. 258 in relation to Sec. 263 of the National Internal Revenue Code. The BIR investigated and found that Cals Corporation deferred issuance of official sales invoices until payment was made and that the corporation lacked prima facie evidence of tax evasion because the checks issued by petitioner had been dishonored for being drawn against a closed account.
Trial Court Proceedings and Subpoena Request
Five informations for violation of BP 22 were filed before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Roxas City, docketed Crim. Cases Nos. 94-2172-12 to 94-2176-12 and raffled to Branch 2. After the prosecution rested, the MTCC declared the cases submitted and later rendered a conviction. The RTC vacated that conviction and remanded for reception of petitioner’s evidence. On March 11, 1999, petitioner requested issuance of subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena duces tecum requiring Vivian Deocampo or Danilo Yap or their authorized representatives to appear on May 19, 1999 and to produce specified books and records for the years 1993–1999, including sales journals, accounts receivable journals and ledgers, sales ledgers, audited income statements and balance sheets, and income tax returns. The prosecution did not initially object and Judge Geomer C. Delfin ordered issuance of the subpoenas on May 19, 1999.
Opposition and Denial by the MTCC
During trial on July 14, 1999 the prosecution opposed enforcement of the subpoena order. The prosecution asserted that certain documents had been burned, that Cals Corporation did not maintain a sales ledger for 1993, and that other ledgers and statements were being computerized and thus unavailable. Cals Corporation argued the requested documents were immaterial and irrelevant to the BP 22 prosecutions. On October 19, 1999, Presiding Judge Edward B. Contreras denied petitioner’s request, finding the documents immaterial to the issues and that the subpoenas would unduly delay the criminal proceedings. A motion for reconsideration was denied.
Certiorari in the RTC and Appeal
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with plea for preliminary injunctive relief in the RTC, SP Case No. V-7489, alleging grave abuse of discretion by Judge Contreras. The RTC dismissed the petition for failure to show grave abuse of discretion in a resolution dated October 18, 2000. A motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner appealed via certiorari to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 66038. The Court of Appeals, in a decision dated August 20, 2002, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the RTC ruling. A motion for reconsideration to the Court of Appeals was denied on May 12, 2003.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
Petitioner urged that the MTCC’s refusal to issue subpoenas violated his constitutional right to compulsory process under Art. III, Sec. 14(2), 1987 Constitution. Petitioner further argued that the courts should balance his right to prove innocence against the complainant’s right to a speedy disposition of the case.
Legal Standards Governing Subpoena Duces Tecum
A subpoena is a process compelling a person to attend and testify or to produce documents. The law recognizes two kinds: subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena duces tecum. The Court cited Caamic vs. Galapon, Jr., H.C. Liebenow v. The Philippine Vegetable Oil Company, and Universal Rubber Products, Inc. v. Court of Appeals for the established requisites for issuance of a subpoena duces tecum. The court explained that a party seeking such a subpoena must satisfy two tests: relevancy of the books or documents to the issue in controversy, and definiteness such that the materials are reasonably described and readily identifiable. The court warned against general inquisitorial demands or fishing expeditions.
Elements and Nature of the Offense Under BP 22
The Court recalled its prior holdings in Aguirre v. People of the Philippines, Cruz v. Court of Appeals, Navarro v. Court of Appeals, and Cueme v. People that BP 22 punishes the issuance of a worthless check. The elements are making, drawing, or issuing a check for value; knowledge by the drawer that sufficient funds or credit do not exist at the time of issuance; and subsequent dishonor of the check. The Court emphasized that the gravamen is the act of issuing a worthless check and that issuance consummates the offense, subject to the statutory defense of payment within five banking days after notice of dishonor.
Application of Standards to the Case
The Court found that petitioner satisfied the definiteness test because the requested documents were specifically described. The Court found, however, that petitioner failed to meet the relevancy test. The records showed that petitioner had been issued temporary receipts in yellow pad slips validated by Cals Corporation and offered as Exh
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 171056)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Petitioner Domingo Roco was the accused in five criminal cases for alleged violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) filed by Cals Poultry Supply Corporation.
- Respondents included Hon. Edward B. Contreras, the presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), the People of the Philippines, and Cals Poultry Supply Corporation.
- The MTCC initially convicted the petitioner, but the Regional Trial Court (RTC) vacated that conviction and remanded the cases for reception of the accused's evidence.
- After remand, the MTCC denied the petitioner's request for issuance of subpoenas duces tecum and ad testificandum, and the RTC dismissed the petition for certiorari challenging that denial for lack of grave abuse of discretion.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on appeal and denied reconsideration, and the petitioner filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Court before this Court.
Key Factual Allegations
- The petitioner purchased dressed chicken from Cals Poultry Supply Corporation in 1993 and paid by issuing five checks drawn on his Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank account.
- The five checks bore the following particulars: Check Nos. 004502, 004503, 004507, 004511, and 004523, dated between 26 April 1993 and 22 May 1993, with amounts ranging from P141,738.55 to P380,560.20.
- The checks were deposited by Cals Corporation but were dishonored by the drawee bank because they were drawn against a closed account.
- The petitioner filed a denunciation with the Bureau of Internal Revenue against Cals Corporation, and the BIR found no prima facie evidence of tax evasion because the corporation deferred issuing sales invoices pending collection.
- The petitioner requested subpoenas to compel Vivian Deocampo or Danilo Yap, or their representatives, to appear and to produce books and records for 1993 through 1999, including sales journals, ledgers, audited financial statements, and income tax returns.
- The MTCC initially granted the subpoena request, but the trial court later, through Judge Edward B. Contreras, denied the request on grounds of immateriality and undue delay.
Issues
- Whether the denial of the petitioner's request for subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena duces tecum violated the petitioner's constitutional right to present evidence under Art. III, Sec. 14(2) of the Constitution.
- Whether the lower courts committed reversible error or grave abuse of discretion in refusing to issue the subpoenas.
- Whether the books and documents requested were prima facie relevant and sufficiently definite to warrant issuance of a subpoena duces tecum.
Contentions of Parties
- The Petitioner contended that the subpoenas were necessary to prove his defense of