GR 114028; (October, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 114028 ; October 18, 2000
SALVADOR SEBASTIAN, SR., petitioner, vs. HON. FRANCIS E. GARCHITORENA, HON. JOSE S. BALAJADIA, and HON. NARCISO T. ATIENZA (SANDIGANBAYAN-First Division), respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Salvador Sebastian, Sr., along with several co-accused, was charged with Malversation of Public Funds before the Sandiganbayan. During the trial, the prosecution presented Auditor Lilibeth Rugayan as a witness. Among the evidence formally offered by the prosecution were the sworn statements of all the accused, including that of the petitioner, which had been marked as exhibits during a pre-trial proceeding with the conformity of the accused and their counsel. The prosecution offered these sworn statements as part of the testimony of Auditor Rugayan.
The accused filed a joint objection to the formal offer of evidence, arguing that the sworn statements were hearsay. The Sandiganbayan, in a Resolution dated August 24, 1993, admitted the exhibits, stating they were admitted “as part of the testimony of Lilibeth Rugayan as examining auditor.” A motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in admitting the sworn statements of the petitioner and his co-accused as evidence for the prosecution.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The Court clarified the application of the hearsay rule. While a witness generally cannot testify on facts not derived from personal perception, an exception exists when a statement is offered not to prove the truth of its contents but merely to establish that the statement was made. The Sandiganbayan’s resolution explicitly stated the sworn statements were admitted only as part of the testimony of the examining auditor. Their purpose was to show that such statements were obtained in the course of the audit, as authorized by the Government Auditing Code (P.D. No. 1445), which empowers auditors to obtain evidence through inquiries and other techniques. They were not admitted for the truth of the allegations therein.
The Court further noted that the petition, improperly styled as one under Rule 45, sought review of interlocutory orders (the evidence admission resolutions) from which no appeal lies. The proper remedy for challenging such interlocutory acts is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, which requires a showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Sandiganbayan’s ruling was a proper exercise of its discretion on an evidentiary matter and did not meet this high standard. The Court also declined to review the Ombudsman’s prosecutorial discretion, which is generally beyond judicial interference.