Digest - Marquez v Sandiganbayan

Marquez v Sandiganbayan -

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

COA, in its Report on the Audit of Selected Transaction and Walis Ting-ting for Paranaque City for ’96-98, ’96-98, found several anomalies involving Joey Marquez (Mayor and Chairman of Bids and Awards Committee) and Ofelia Caunan (Head of General Services office). Without public bidding, Marquez and Caunan procured thousands of rounds of bullets from VMY Trading (even though it was not registered as an arms and ammunitions dealer w/ PNP and DTI). A COA special audit team issued i ssued Notices of Disallowances for the ammunitions. They appealed this to COA but they were denied. Meanwhile, at the office of the Ombudsman (OMB), in response to charges filed against them [during preliminary investigation], they filed their joint counter affidavit insisting on the propriety of the transaction and raised the pendency of their appeal to COA. The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) found probable cause for violation of RA3019 Sec 3(e) against Marquez and Caunan and filed three informations against the Marque and Caunan. Nov 24, 2003, before arraignment, Marquez sought referral of several documents to the NBI Questioned Documents Section. Marquez asserted that his signatures si gnatures on the disbursement vouchers, purchase requests, and authorization requests [hereinafter referred as “documents in question”] question”] were forged. He also requested for reinvestigation. This request was denied by the OSP Before the Sandiganbayan(SB) 4 th division, the prosecution presented 5 witnesses: Fatima Bermudez – COA State Auditor o Elenita Pracale – Chief of Business Permit and License office of Paranaque o Benjamin Cruz o Police Inspector Rolando Columna – PNP Firearms Division Legal Officer o Emerito Lejano – Guns Empire President o The prosecution also presented the documents that were earlier questioned by Marquez. All of the evidence offered (on Jan 2006) by the prosecution was admitted by SB on March 2006. After the prosecution rested, Caunan testified and partly presented her evidence. April 1, 2008, Marquez moved for: The inhibition of Justice Ong and Justice Hernandez o The referral of the documents in question to the NBI. o The two Justices did inhibit themselves and the case was re-raffled to the 5 th division. But the request for the referral of the documents was not n ot acted upon. July 4, 2008, Marquez filed another motion for the referral of the documents in question to the NBI alleging that his signatures on the same were forged. Prosecution filed its Comment/Opposition arguing that: All of its documentary exhibits were offered in 2006 and had been duly admitted by SB. o When confronted with the transactions during the COA audit investigation, Marquez o never raised the defense of forgery and instead insisted on the propriety of the transactions. Neither did he claim forgery when he filed his Counter Affidavit in the OSP. o Rule 129.4; Since Marquez alleged on his pleadings that he relied on the competence of o his subordinates and thus there could be no palpable mistake, he is thus estopped from alleging that his signatures on the documents in question were forged. The motion was filed merely to delay the proceedings. o Marquez filed a reply saying that he never admitted that his signatures on the documents in question were his and that the motion was not filed for mere delay. SB issued a resolution denying the motion of Marquez, citing Rule 132.22. They said that while, the opinion of handwriting experts could be helpful in the examination of the alleged forged documents, it was neither mandatory nor indispensible, since the court can determine forgery from its own independent examination.

-

After the denial of his motion for reconsideration, Marquez filed a Rule 65 certiorari with the SC, saying that the denial of his motion for referral of the documents was in violation of his right to present evidence and due process.

ISSUE: WoM denial of the motion to refer the documents in question to the NBI was done in GADALEJ? SC: YES -

-

-

-

-

The right of the accused to an opportunity to be heard necessarily implies with it the reasonable freedom to present its evidence. Forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence by the party alleging it. In order to discharge this burden, the party alleging it must be afforded reasonable opportunity to present evidence to support his allegation. This opportunity is the actual examination of the signatures of the documents in question by no less than the country’s premier investigative force, the NBI. If he is denied such opportunity, his only evidence on this matter is negative testimonial evidence w/c is generally considered as weak. The findings of NBI will still be subject to scrutiny and ev aluation in line w/ Rule 132.22. Nevertheless, Marquez shouldn’t be deprived of his right to present evidence. While this defense may seem feeble to SB, Marquez should be allowed to adduce evidence of his own choice. SB’s reason for denial of the motion is that it may va lidly determine forgery from its own independent examination of the documentary evidence. But while it is true that appreciation of WoN the signatures are genuine is subject to the discretion of SB, this discretion may rightly be exercised only after the evidence is submitted to the court at the hearing. The prosecution had already offered its evidence on the matter. The court should not deny the same right to the defense. Contrary to what the prosecution asserts, Marquez’s motion was not a mere afterthought. As early as Nov 24, 2003, even before arraignment, Marquez already sought referral of the documents in question to the NBI and reinvestigation of the case against him. The fact that Marquez did not raise this issue with COA is irrelevant and immaterial. His failure to do so may affect the weight of his defense, but it should not bar him from insisting on it during his turn to adduce evidence. The fact that the documentary exhibit were already offered and admitted by SB cannot preclude an examination of the signatures thereon by the defense. With proper handling by court personnel, this can be accomplished by the NBI expert examiners.