7/22/2019 Digest - Marquez v Sandiganbayan

1/2

Marquez v Sandiganbayan

- COA, in its Report on the Audit of Selected Transaction and Walis Ting-ting for Paranaque Cityfor 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 fromVMY Trading (even though it was not registered as an arms and ammunitions dealer w/ PNP

and DTI).- A COA special audit team issued Notices of Disallowances for the ammunitions. They appealedthis 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 Sec3(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 NBIQuestioned Documents Section. Marquez asserted that his signatures on the disbursement

vouchers, purchase requests, and authorization requests[hereinafter referred as

documents inquestion] were forged. He also requested for reinvestigation.- This request was denied by the OSP- Before the Sandiganbayan(SB) 4thdivision, the prosecution presented 5 witnesses:

o Fatima Bermudez COA State Auditoro Elenita Pracale Chief of Business Permit and License office of Paranaqueo Benjamin Cruzo Police Inspector Rolando Columna PNP Firearms Division Legal Officero Emerito Lejano Guns Empire President

- 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:

o The inhibition of Justice Ong and Justice Hernandezo The referral of the documents in question to the NBI.

- The two Justices did inhibit themselves and the case was re-raffled to the 5thdivision. But therequest for the referral of the documents was not acted upon.

- July 4, 2008, Marquez filed another motion for the referral of the documents in question to theNBI alleging that his signatures on the same were forged.

- Prosecution filed its Comment/Opposition arguing that:o 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, Marqueznever raised the defense of forgery and instead insisted on the propriety of the

transactions.

o 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

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.

o The motion was filed merely to delay the proceedings.- 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.

7/22/2019 Digest - Marquez v Sandiganbayan

2/2

- After the denial of his motion for reconsideration, Marquez filed a Rule 65 certiorari with theSC, 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 topresent its evidence.

- Forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence by the party allegingit.

- In order to discharge this burden, the party alleging it must be afforded reasonable opportunity to presentevidence to support his allegation.

- This opportunity is the actual examination of the signatures of the documents in question by no less than thecountrys 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 evaluation in line w/ Rule 132.22. Nevertheless, Marquezshouldnt 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.

- SBs reason for denial of the motion is that it may validly determine forgery from its own independentexamination of the documentary evidence. But while it is true that appreciation of WoN the signatures aregenuine 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, Marquezs 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 affectthe 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 ofthe signatures thereon by the defense. With proper handling by court personnel, this can be accomplished by the

NBI expert examiners.