De Guzman, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 208083-84. August 5, 2013.]

JOSE Q. DE GUZMAN, JR., petitioner, vs. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, FIFTH [5TH] DIVISION, ET AL., respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 05 August 2013 which reads as follows:

G.R. Nos. 208083-84 (Jose Q. de Guzman, Jr. v. Hon. Sandiganbayan, Fifth [5th] Division, et al.). — For the Court's resolution is a petition for certiorari filed under Rule 65 by petitioner Jose de Guzman, Jr. to set aside the two resolutions 1 of the Sandiganbayan dated April 1, 2013 and July 10, 2013 in Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0127-0128. In the resolution dated April 1, 2013, the Sandiganbayan denied the petitioner's Omnibus Motion to Produce Documents in Addition to the Previous Motion to Conduct an Ocular Inspection and Motion to Quash. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied in the resolution dated July 10, 2013.

Petitioner is the owner of JQG Homes Development Corporation which is engaged in the construction of houses/buildings and the sale of residential lots and houses. The corporation entered into a Marketing Agreement with Edeluisa T. Nuguid for the latter to offer to sell, on a commission basis, houses and lots to the members of the respondent Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) under its "Bahay Ko Program".

Nuguid recruited and assisted interested GSIS members in accomplishing the documentary requirements. The GSIS approved the applications. This prompted the petitioner to execute Deeds of Sale in favor of the members-applicants and, thereafter, new titles were eventually issued in their names. After the submission to the GSIS of the photocopies of the titles, Branch Manager Mr. Amando A. Inocentes approved the loans and issued Letters of Guarantee.

With the issuance of the Letters of Guarantee, petitioner completed the construction of the houses of the members-applicants. After completion, the petitioner demanded payment from the GSIS. The GSIS refused to pay.

Instead of paying, the GSIS instituted several cases against the petitioner, namely: 1) two complaints filed with the Office of the Ombudsman for violations of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 3019 2 and R.A. 7080; 3 and 2) estafa (dismissed).

On September 19, 2011, the Office of the Ombudsman filed with the Sandiganbayan two Informations for Violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019 against the petitioner and several GSIS officers. The Informations alleged that the petitioner acted in conspiracy with the GSIS officers who gave him undue preference, benefit or advantage by processing and approving the housing loans of 491 borrowers in Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0127 and 53 borrowers in Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0128. Furthermore, in Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0128, the Information states that the GSIS officers approved the loans knowing that the lots covered were intended for commercial purposes and that they caused an over-appraisal in the amount of P33,242,848.36. STcAIa

After his arraignment, the petitioner filed with the Sandiganbayan the following: 1) Omnibus Motion to Produce Documents in Addition to the Previous Motion to Conduct an Ocular Inspection and Motion to Quash dated January 4, 2013; and 2) Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution denying his Omnibus Motion.

The Sandiganbayan's Ruling

In denying both motions, the Sandiganbayan ruled that Section 10, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is a mode of discovery and is inapplicable in this case since the petitioner already has the photocopies of the documents, the original copies of which he seeks to be produced.

The Petition for Certiorari

Motion to Produce Documents

The requested original documents pertain to the Inspection and Appraisal Reports and Memoranda prepared by the GSIS officers. The petitioner admitted that he has photocopies of the said documents. According to him, he filed the motion for production because, without the originals being compared with his photocopies, these reproduced copies would not be admitted as evidence.

Motion to Quash

The petitioner averred that the motion to quash could be resolved on the basis of the allegations in the Informations, pleadings and annexes. Furthermore, he argued that the other issues raised are merely questions of law which the Court could take judicial notice of.

The petitioner likewise prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction. ASTDCH

Our Ruling

We resolve to dismiss the petition.

On the Motion to Produce Documents

The Sandiganbayan was correct in denying the petitioner's motion to produce documents.

Following the provision of Section 10, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which the petitioner invoked in his motions, the Sandiganbayan has the discretion to deny or grant his motion for production of documents upon good cause shown. It appears in this case that the petitioner already has the photocopies of the requested documents.

The petitioner mainly argued that without the requested original copies, the photocopies in his possession would be inadmissible as evidence. The petitioner's apprehension is misplaced as there is a procedural remedy, sanctioned by the Rules of Court, which would avoid delays in the proceedings of the case.

Under Section 3 (b), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, when the original copy in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice, the reproduced copy may be admitted as secondary evidence.

Furthermore, the petitioner himself admitted that he did not make any request from the GSIS because he was very certain that this would be denied. 4 Thus, his motion is speculative, especially so when the prosecution may even submit the originals as exhibits during the pre-trial or a stipulation may be requested by the petitioner during this stage to establish that his photocopies are faithful reproduction of the originals under the custody of the prosecution. 5 At any rate, his procedural remedy under Section 3 (b) of Rule 130 cited above is not lost. DaAETS

On the Motion to Quash

The Sandiganbayan was likewise correct in denying the motion to quash.

The ground raised by the petitioner, specifically that the offense was not consummated for lack of damage, is a matter of defense and is proper for reception of evidence. "Facts that constitute the defense of the [accused] against the charge under the information must be proved by him during trial. Such facts or circumstances do not constitute proper grounds for a motion to quash the information on the ground that the material averments do not constitute the offense." 6

WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to DISMISS the petition, no grave abuse of discretion having been committed by the Sandiganbayan in issuing the assailed Resolutions.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Penned by Associate Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang, and concurred in by Associate Justices Roland B. Jurado and Alexander G. Gesmundo; rollo, pp. 38-43 and 45-49.

2.Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

3.An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder.

4.Rollo, p. 21.

5.RULES OF COURT, Rule 118, Sections 1 and 2.

6.Soriano v. People, G.R. Nos. 159517-18, June 30, 2009, 591 SCRA 244, 258, citing Torres v. Hon. Garchitorena, 442 Phil. 765, 777 (2002).