19 - Valencia v. Sandiganbayan - Hernandez

May 2, 2018 | Author: Aldrin Tang | Category: Demurrer, Prosecutor, Courts, Separation Of Powers, Government
Share Embed Donate

Short Description

Case Digest...



Valencia v. Sandiganbayan (2005)


Valencia was the Governor of Oriental Mindoro. He was elected in 1992.

nfor!ation was filed char"in" Valencia w# violation of $A %&19. The  'rosec(tion contends that the a''oint!ent a''oint!ent "ives (nwarranted )enefit to *!)ao who is dis+(alified to )e a''ointed w#in 1 ,ear after losin" the 1992 election. Valencia 'leaded not "(ilt,. The 'arties s()!itted a -oint Sti'(lation of Facts -SF/ which stated that

Co(ncilor Mercene died in 1992 so there was a 'er!anent vacanc, in the San"(nian" 0a,an of ola Oriental Mindoro. Valencia a''ointed *!)ao who ran for the sa!e 'osition )(t lost earlier that ,ear. n March 2&&% Sandi"an)a,an directed the 'arties to si"n the -SF. Si"ned

onl, ), the S'ecial rosec(tor and 'etitioner3s co(nsel. n -an 12 2&&4 rosec(tor Salindon" rested the case )ased on the -SF and

waived the 'resentation of evidence for the 'rosec(tion. Jan 19: Valencia filed a Motion for Leave to File De!rrer to "vidence

 )eca(se the #ro$ec!tion failed to #re$ent% ar& and offer evidence that wo(ld s()stantiate the char"e a"ainst hi!. -SF lac5s his si"nat(re. rosec failed to s()!it evidence esta)lishin" in6(r, and 'resence of 'artialit,. ros. A(tencio78a+(is 'inalitan ,(n" (na/ filed an o''osition contendin"

• •

the de!(rrer is 're!at(re )eca(se the, have ,et to for!all, offer the -SF. Sandi"an directed the! a"ain to si"n the -SF. Valencia filed M$ clai!in" that his for!er co(nsel was not a(thoried to

enter into an, a"ree!ent and he onl, fo(nd o(t a)o(t the -SF in -an. Sandi"an iss(ed a 're7trial order e!)od,in" the -SF. Sandi"an Sandi"an iss(ed then iss(ed another order order recallin" recallin" the 're7trial 're7trial order

den,in" the !otion for leave to file de!(rrer and settin" the case for   'resentation of 'rosec(tion3s 'rosec(tion3s evidence. M$ M$ denied. rosec(tion 'roceeded with the 'resentation since there3s no T$O or .

SS*: • •

;#< Motion for =eave to File 8e!(rrer to vidence was 're!at(re> ;#< Sanid"an Sanid"an)a,a )a,an n co!!itted co!!itted GA8 in settin" settin" case for 'resenta 'resentation tion of  evidence>

*nder $119: 8e!(rrer is filed after the 'rosec(tion 'rosec(tion rests its case. t tests the

s(fficienc, of the 'rosec(tion3s evidence. $1%2: 0efore evidence !a, )e ad!itted it !(st )e for!all, offered. The !otion for leave to file de!(rrer was 're!at(re . 'ro$ec ad yet to forally forally re$t it$ ca$e . The -SF was not ,et offered as evidence altho("h Valencia did receive ), !ail a !otion and for!al offer of evidence dated Jan 20. The filin" shall )e 'roved ), its e?istence in the case records. The records of the Sandi"an)a,an Sandi"an)a,an )ear no s(ch offer filed ), the 'rosec(tion. Ass(!in" it was for!all, offered the !otion was still 're!at(re )eca(se it was filed a da, )efore the date of the offer. offer. Valencia i$elf $aid te #ro$ec!tion failed to ar& and offer evidence. o *+D. The co(rt !a, "rant 'arties the o''ort(nit, to add(ce additional evidence in f(rtherance f(rtherance of 6(stice. The trial 'roced(re in $119 $119 de'ends ('on the circ(!stances of each case at the discretion of the trial 6(d"e. The rece'tion of additional evidence is not technicall, a reo'enin" of the

case as the 'rosec had ,et to for!all, rest its case. A !otion to reo'en  'res(''oses  'res(''oses that 'arties have for!all, for!all, offered and closed closed their evidence. evidence. f  the ad!ission of add3l evidence is sanctioned )efore 6(d"!ent with !ore reason that it sho(ld )e allowed when the 'rosec had not ,et concl(ded its  'resentation  'resentation of evidence. evidence. His ref(sal to si"n the the -SF is 6(stification 6(stification to to recall the 're7trial order set the case for 'resentation of evidence. evidence. Valencia can3t clai! denial of d(e 'rocess. He can still contest the evidence

add(ce add(ced d a"ains a"ainstt hi! and and 'rove 'rove his own own defens defenses es after after 'rose 'rosec(t c(tion ion concl(des its 'resentation of evidence. The State is entitled to d(e 'rocess. ros. Salindon" co!!itted GA8 ),

restin" restin" the case witho(t witho(t add(cin" add(cin" evidence evidence for the State State and witho(t witho(t ens(rin" that Valencia si"ned the -SF )efore s()!ittin" it to the Sandi"an. He can3t invo5e the ri"ht to a s'eed, trial. Since the first anon co!'laint in

1994 )efore the O!)(ds!an Valencia never contested the 'rosec(torial  'roceedin"s nor the 'endenc, 'endenc, of the case. case. $i"ht is dee!ed waived. waived. $119 $119 'rovid 'rovides es that that an order order den,i den,in" n" !otio !otion n to file file de!(rr de!(rrer er is not

reviewa)le ), a''eal or certiorari )efore 6(d"!ent. Valencia3s re!ed, is to 'roceed with the 'resentation of his evidence and

• •

a''eal fro! an, adverse decision that !a, )e rendered.

View more...


Copyright ©2017 KUPDF Inc.