Marquez v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns alleged anomalies in the procurement of several thousand rounds of bullets for the City of Parañaque, during the years 1996 to 1998. Petitioner Joey P. Marquez, then City Mayor and Chairman of the Bids and Awards Committee, along with Ofelia C. Caunan, Head of the General Services Office, allegedly secured these procurements through personal canvass and without public bidding. The bullets were reportedly grossly overpriced from VMY Trading, a company not registered as an arms and ammunitions dealer. The Commission on Audit (COA) issued Notices of Disallowance for these transactions, which were upheld upon reconsideration and appeal to the COA. Procedural History: Following the COA's findings, the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB), through the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), found probable cause to indict Marquez and Caunan for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. Three informations were filed against them and the cases were initially raffled to the Fourth Division of the Sandiganbayan (SB-4th Division). Before arraignment, Marquez sought the referral of disbursement vouchers, purchase requests, and authorization requests to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for examination due to alleged forged signatures, but this was denied by the OSP. After the prosecution presented its evidence and rested its case, and Caunan testified, Marquez filed an Omnibus Motion with the SB-4th Division, again seeking the referral of documents to the NBI. Two justices inhibited themselves, and the cases were raffled to the 5th Division of the Sandiganbayan (SB-5th Division). Marquez then filed a specific Motion to Refer Prosecution's Evidence for Examination by the Questioned Documents Section of the NBI, which was denied by the SB-5th Division in a Resolution dated February 11, 2009, and subsequently denied again in a Resolution dated May 20, 2009, when his motion for reconsideration was rejected. The Petition: Petitioner Joey P. Marquez filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with the Supreme Court, assailing the Sandiganbayan 5th Division's resolutions that denied his motion to refer prosecution's evidence for examination by the NBI's Questioned Documents Section. Marquez argues that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by denying him the opportunity to present evidence to support his defense of forgery. He contends that this denial violates his constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, and his right to be heard and to present evidence in his behalf. Marquez asserts that he has consistently sought the examination of the documents since before his arraignment, and that the denial of this request has effectively prevented him from proving his defense, thereby prejudicing his case.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan 5th Division committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioner Joey P. Marquez’s Motion to Refer Prosecution’s Evidence for Examination by the Questioned Documents Section of the National Bureau of Investigation, thereby violating his right to present evidence. Whether the denial of the motion also violated Marquez's constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of law.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The February 11, 2009 and May 20, 2009 Resolutions of the 5th Division of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case Nos. 27903, 27904 and 27905 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The 5th Division of the Sandiganbayan is ordered to allow the petitioner Joey P. Marquez to refer the evidence of the prosecution to the Questioned Documents Section of the National Bureau of Investigation for examination as soon as possible and, after submission of the results to the court and proper proceedings, to act on the case with dispatch.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Grave Abuse of Discretion and Violation of Right to Present Evidence: The Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan 5th Division committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that due process in criminal proceedings requires that the accused be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present his defense. Marquez's defense was that his signatures on the disbursement vouchers, purchase requests, and authorizations were forged, a claim that requires substantiation through evidence. The Court reiterated the hornbook rule that forgery must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging it. Therefore, Marquez must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence to support his allegation, which includes the examination of the questioned signatures by the NBI, the country's premier investigative force. Denying this opportunity would render his only evidence on the matter as weak testimonial evidence and prevent him from submitting any other examination results, as the original documents are under the control of the prosecution or the court. On the Issue of Violation of Due Process and Equal Protection: The Court clarified that any finding by the NBI would not be binding on the Sandiganbayan but would still be subject to its scrutiny and evaluation. However, Marquez should not be deprived of his right to present his defense, regardless of how the prosecution or the court perceives its strength or strategy. The Court noted that Marquez had consistently sought this referral since before his arraignment, indicating it was not a mere afterthought to delay the proceedings. The denial of this simple request, the Court reasoned, was the cause of any perceived delay, and granting it earlier would have allowed the trial to proceed smoothly. The fact that Marquez did not raise the issue with the COA was deemed immaterial to his right to present evidence during his turn to adduce evidence. The Sandiganbayan's reasoning that it could determine forgery from its own independent examination was insufficient, as evidence cannot be properly weighed without being exhibited or produced before the court. The Court concluded that by denying Marquez the opportunity to be heard and to produce evidence of his choice, the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
The Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it denied the petitioner's motion to refer prosecution's evidence for examination by the Questioned Documents Section of the National Bureau of Investigation, thereby violating his right to present evidence and his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of law.