G.R. No. 187912 -14; January 31, 2011
JOEY P. MARQUEZ, Petitioner, vs. THE SANDIGANBAYAN 5th DIVISION and THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Joey P. Marquez, then City Mayor and Chairman of the Bids and Awards Committee of Parañaque City, and Ofelia C. Caunan, Head of the General Services Office, were charged with three counts of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The charges stemmed from a Commission on Audit (COA) Special Audit Report which discovered that, through personal canvass and without public bidding, they procured grossly overpriced ammunition from an unregistered dealer. The Office of the Ombudsman found probable cause and filed the Informations. Before arraignment, and again after the cases were raffled to the Sandiganbayan’s 5th Division, Marquez filed a Motion to Refer Prosecution’s Evidence (specifically disbursement vouchers, purchase requests, and authorization requests) for examination by the Questioned Documents Section of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), insisting his signatures thereon were forged. The prosecution opposed, arguing the documents had already been formally offered and admitted in evidence in 2006, and that Marquez never raised the defense of forgery during the COA audit, in his appeal to the COA, or in his Joint Counter-Affidavit before the Ombudsman, where he instead insisted on the propriety of the transactions. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion, citing Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, stating that while expert opinion is helpful, it is not mandatory as the court can independently determine forgery. Marquez’s motion for reconsideration was also denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioner’s Motion to Refer Prosecution’s Evidence to the NBI for examination, thereby allegedly violating his right to present evidence and his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection.

RULING

Yes, the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled and set aside the assailed Sandiganbayan Resolutions, and directed the anti-graft court to grant Marquez’s motion for NBI examination.
The Court held that the denial of the motion constituted a capricious, arbitrary, and whimsical exercise of power equivalent to an evasion of a positive duty. The right to due process in criminal proceedings includes a meaningful opportunity to be heard and to present one’s defense. While the Sandiganbayan correctly noted that expert examination is not indispensable under the rules of evidence, its outright denial of the motion, based solely on the procedural timeline and Marquez’s prior pleadings, deprived him of a reasonable opportunity to prove his claim of forgery—a central and potentially exculpatory defense. The Court found no compelling reason to bar the examination, as it would aid in ascertaining the truth and would not cause undue delay. The prosecution’s evidence of Marquez’s prior judicial admissions (by not claiming forgery earlier) could be properly weighed against the results of the expert analysis during trial. Therefore, the Sandiganbayan’s refusal to allow the examination, which was pivotal to Marquez’s defense, was a patent violation of his constitutional right to due process.