Roco vs Contreras

Roco vs Contreras Facts Facts:: Domingo Roco was engaged in the business of buying and selling dressed chicken. Sometime in 1993, he purchased his supply of dressed chicken from private respondent als !oultry Supply orporation "als orporation, for short#, a domestic corporation controlled and managed by one Danilo $ap. %s payment for his purchases, Roco drew five "&# checks payable to als orporation against his account with the !hilipp !hilippine ine ommerc ommercial ial and 'ndustri 'ndustrial al (ank (ank "!'(#. "!'(#. als orpora orporation tion deposit deposited ed the checks in its account with !'( but the bank dishonored them for having been drawn against a closed account. )hereafter, als orporation filed criminal complaints against petitioner for violation of (atas !ambasa (lg. ** "(! **#, otherwise known as the (ouncing hecks +aw. fter preliminary investigation, five "&# informations for violation of  (! ** were filed against Roco before the unicipal )rial ourt in ities ")#, Ro-as ity, thereat docketed as rim. ases o. 9/0*1*01* to 9/0*1201*, all of which were raffled to (ranch * of said court but even before trial could commence, Roco filed with the (ureau of 'nternal Revenue "('R# at 'loilo ity a denunciation letter against als orporation for the latters alleged violation of Section *& in relation to Section *23 of  the ational 'nternal Revenue ode in that it failed to issue commercial invoices on its sales of merchandise. 4pon ('Rs investigation, it was found that als orporations sales on account were unavoidable, hence, the corporation had to defer the issuance of  Sale Sales s 'nvo 'nvoic ices es unti untill the the purc purcha hase ses s of its its cust custom omer ers s were ere paid paid in full full and and the the investigation disclosed that the same could not, as yet, be issued by the corporation precisely because the checks drawn and issued by him in payment of his purchases were dishonored by !'( for the reason that the checks were drawn against a closed account. %ccordingly, the ('R found no prima facia evidence of ta- evasion against als orporation orporation then trial of the criminal cases proceeded. proceeded. %fter the prosecution rested, the ) declared the cases submitted for decision on account of Roco failure to adduce evidence in his behalf. +ater, the same court rendered a 5udgment of conviction against Roco.

Issue: Issue: Whethe Whetherr the subpoe subpoena na calls calls for the produc productio tion n of specif specific ic documents, or rather for specific proof  Held: )he )he issua issuanc nce e of a subpo subpoen ena a duces must appe appear ar,, by clea clearr and and duces tecum tecum, it must une6 une6ui uivo voca call proo proof, f, that that the the book book or docu docume ment nt soug sought ht to be prod produc uced ed cont contai ains ns evidence relevant relevant and material to the issue before the court, and that the precise book, paper or document containing such evidence has been so designated or described that it may be identified. oing by established precedents, it thus behooves the petitioner to first prove, to the satisfaction of the court, the relevancy  and   and the definiteness of the books and documents he seeks to be brought before it. %dmittedly, the books and documents that petitioner re6uested to be subpoenaed are designated and described in his re6uest with definiteness definiteness and readily identifiable. identifiable. )he test of definiteness, definiteness, therefore, is satisfied in this case. 't is, however, in the matter of relevancy of those books and

documents to the pending criminal cases that petitioner miserably failed to discharge his burden. 7e stress that the gravamen of the offense under (! ** is the act of making or  issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentment for  payment. )he offense is already consummated from the very moment a person issues a worthless check, albeit  payment of the value of the check, either by the drawer or by the drawee bank, within five "&# banking days from notice of dishonor given to the drawer is a complete defense because the  prima facie presumption that the drawer had knowledge of the insufficiency of his funds or credit at the time of the issuance of the check and on its presentment for payment is thereby rebutted by such payment. 8ere, Roco would want it appear that the books and documents sub5ect of his re6uest for  subpoena  duces tecum  are indispensable, or, at least, relevant to prove his innocence. )he ourt disagrees. 7e do not find any 5ustifiable reason, and petitioner has not shown any, why this ourt must have to disbelieve the factual findings of the appellate court. 'n short, the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum or ad testificandum to compel the attendance of ivian Deocampo or Danilo $ap of als orporation or their duly authori:ed representatives, to testify and bring with them the records and documents desired by the petitioner, would serve no purpose but to further delay the proceedings in the pending criminal cases.

Jackson vs Macalino  ;ackson vs. acalino  such warrants can only be issued to enforce a final order of  deportation.

8eld= )he ultimate purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to relieve a person from unlawful restraint. 't is essentially a writ of in6uiry and is granted to test the right under which he is detained. )he term ?court@ includes 6uasi05udicial bodies like the Deportation (oard of the (ureau of 'mmigration. %s a general rule, the burden of proving illegal restraint by the respondents rests on the petitioner who attaches such restraints. 7hether the return sets forth process where on its face shows good ground for the detention of  the petitioner, it is incumbent on him to allege and prove new matter that tends to invalidate the apparent effects of such process. 'f it appears that the detained person is in custody under a warrant of  commitment in pursuance of law, the return shall be considered prima facie evidence of the cause of  restraint. 'n this case, based on the return of the writ by the respondents, ;ackson was arrested and detained based on the order of the (> which had become final and e-ecutory. 8is passports were also cancelled by the 4S consul on the ground that they were tampered with. (ased on previous  5urisprudence, such constitute sufficient grounds for the arrest and deportation of aliens from the !hilippines. 8ence, the petition was dismissed.

In re: Issuance of Habeas Corpus