In Joey P. Marquez v. The Sandiganbayan, the Supreme Court ruled that denying an accused the opportunity to present evidence to support a defense of forgery constitutes a grave abuse of discretion and a violation of due process. The Court emphasized the importance of allowing the accused to present their chosen evidence, even if the court believes the defense to be weak. This decision reinforces an individual’s right to a fair trial by ensuring they can fully present their case, particularly when challenging the authenticity of critical documents.

Signatures Under Scrutiny: Can an Accused Demand Independent Verification?

Joey P. Marquez, former Mayor of Parañaque City, was charged with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, also known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, based on allegedly anomalous procurement transactions. The prosecution presented disbursement vouchers, purchase requests, and authorization requests bearing Marquez’s purported signatures. Marquez, however, claimed that his signatures on these documents were forged and sought to have the documents examined by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). The Sandiganbayan denied his motion, stating that it could independently determine the genuineness of the signatures. This denial prompted Marquez to file a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with the Supreme Court, arguing that the Sandiganbayan’s decision violated his right to present evidence and his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the law.

The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Marquez’s motion to refer the prosecution’s evidence to the NBI for examination. Marquez argued that the denial hindered his ability to present a crucial aspect of his defense – that the signatures on the documents were not his. He contended that without an expert examination, he would be unable to effectively challenge the authenticity of the documents, thus compromising his right to a fair trial. The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that the documentary exhibits had already been formally offered and admitted, and that Marquez had not raised the issue of forgery during earlier investigations by the Commission on Audit (COA) or in his counter-affidavit filed with the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB). They also pointed to Section 4, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of Court, suggesting that Marquez was estopped from alleging forgery because he had previously relied on the competence of his subordinates.

The Supreme Court began its analysis by reiterating the fundamental principles of due process in criminal proceedings. The Court emphasized that an accused person has the right to be heard and to present evidence in their defense. This right is enshrined in Section 14, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, which states that every accused person has the right to “have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.” The Court further explained that due process requires (a) a court with proper jurisdiction, (b) lawful acquisition of jurisdiction over the accused, (c) an opportunity for the accused to be heard, and (d) a judgment rendered upon lawful hearing.

Building on this foundation, the Court addressed the specific issue of forgery. It noted that forgery must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging it. In Marquez’s case, this meant that he had to present evidence to demonstrate that his signatures were indeed forged. The Court found that the Sandiganbayan’s denial of Marquez’s motion to refer the documents to the NBI deprived him of a reasonable opportunity to present such evidence. Without the NBI’s expert examination, Marquez would be limited to presenting negative testimonial evidence, which the Court acknowledged as generally weak. The Court stated:

Thus, Marquez bears the burden of submitting evidence to prove the fact that his signatures were indeed forged. In order to be able to discharge his burden, he must be afforded reasonable opportunity to present evidence to support his allegation. This opportunity is the actual examination of the signatures he is questioning 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 which is generally considered as weak. And, he cannot submit any other examination result because the signatures are on the original documents which are in the control of either the prosecution or the graft court.

The Court clarified that while the Sandiganbayan could ultimately make its own determination of forgery based on its independent examination of the documents, this did not justify denying Marquez the opportunity to present his own evidence. The Court noted that an NBI finding would not be binding on the Sandiganbayan but would still be subject to its scrutiny and evaluation. The decision underscored the importance of allowing the accused to fully present their defense, regardless of how the prosecution or the court perceived its strength. The Court stated, “The court should not control how he will defend himself as long as the steps to be taken will not be in violation of the rules.”

The Court also addressed the prosecution’s argument that Marquez’s motion was a mere afterthought to delay the proceedings. The Court pointed out that Marquez had sought referral of the documents to the NBI as early as November 24, 2003, even before arraignment. His request had been consistently denied, demonstrating that he had not abandoned his quest to have the signatures examined. The Court also dismissed the argument that Marquez’s failure to raise the forgery issue with the COA was relevant, stating that it might affect the weight of his defense but should not bar him from presenting it.

In its decision, the Supreme Court cited Section 22 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, which discusses how the genuineness of handwriting may be proved. This section allows for comparison of handwriting by a witness or the court with writings admitted or proved to be genuine. However, the Court emphasized that this provision does not preclude the accused from presenting expert testimony to support their claim of forgery. The Court reasoned that the Sandiganbayan’s denial of Marquez’s motion constituted a grave abuse of discretion, warranting intervention from the Court. The Court stated, “Only after evidence is offered and admitted that the court can appreciate and evaluate it. The prosecution had already offered its evidence on the matter. The court should not deny the same right to the defense.”

The Supreme Court weighed the balance between due process, speedy trial, and the state’s right to prosecute crimes. The Court stated, “Indeed, both the State and the accused are entitled to due process. However, the exercise of such discretion must be exercised judiciously, bearing in mind the circumstances of each case, and the interests of substantial justice.” By denying Marquez the opportunity to present evidence of his choice, the Sandiganbayan had disrupted this balance, necessitating the Court’s intervention.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court granted Marquez’s petition, reversing and setting aside the Sandiganbayan’s resolutions. The Court ordered the Sandiganbayan to allow Marquez to refer the prosecution’s evidence to the Questioned Documents Section of the NBI for examination and to act on the case with dispatch after the results were submitted.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion by denying the accused’s motion to have documents examined by the NBI to prove forgery.
Why did Marquez claim the signatures were not his?	Marquez claimed the signatures were not his to dispute the authenticity of documents used as evidence against him in a graft case. He argued that the transactions were based on falsified documents.
What is the significance of proving forgery in this case?	Proving forgery would undermine the prosecution’s case by casting doubt on the authenticity of the documents linking Marquez to the alleged anomalous transactions. It would support the defense that he was not involved.
What did the Sandiganbayan argue in denying Marquez’s motion?	The Sandiganbayan argued that it could independently determine the genuineness of the signatures and that Marquez had not raised the issue of forgery earlier. They believed it was a delay tactic.
What was the basis for the Supreme Court’s decision?	The Supreme Court based its decision on the accused’s right to due process and the right to present evidence in their defense. They wanted to ensure a fair trial for the accused.
How does this case affect the rights of accused individuals?	This case reinforces the right of accused individuals to present evidence supporting their defense, even if the court views the defense as weak. It emphasizes the importance of a fair opportunity.
What is the role of the NBI in this case?	The NBI’s role is to conduct an expert examination of the disputed signatures and provide an objective assessment of their authenticity. Its finding would then be subject to the court’s evaluation.
What does the Supreme Court’s decision mean for the Sandiganbayan?	The Supreme Court’s decision means the Sandiganbayan must allow the NBI examination. After the submission of results and proper proceedings, they must act on the case quickly.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Joey P. Marquez v. The Sandiganbayan serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of due process and the right to present evidence in criminal proceedings. By ensuring that accused individuals have a fair opportunity to challenge the evidence against them, the Court upholds the principles of justice and fairness that are essential to a functioning legal system.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: JOEY P. MARQUEZ, PETITIONER, VS. THE SANDIGANBAYAN 5TH DIVISION AND THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, RESPONDENTS., G.R. Nos. 187912-14, January 31, 2011