ETRIII
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW Lecture Series
Lecture
Outline No. 8
OUTLINE/ LECTURE ON
OFFER OF EVIDENCE AND OBJECTIONS
UNDER THE RULES OF COURT AS MODIFIED BY
THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE
By: Atty. Eduardo T.
Reyes, III
(Prepared for Law 3-A,
Univ. of San Agustin Law School,
SY
2016-2017)
i. Comparative
Analysis of Rules on Offer of Evidence & Objections Under the Rules of
Court and the Judicial Affidavit Rule
NOTE: Pursuant to the Judicial Affidavit
Rule, a much later enactment than the Rules of Court, “Section 11. Repeal or modification of inconsistent rules. - The provisions of the Rules of Court
and the rules of procedure governing investigating officers and bodies
authorized by the Supreme Court to receive evidence are repealed or modified
insofar as these are inconsistent with the provisions of this Rule”.1âwph
Sections
34 to 40, Rules of Court
|
Judicial
Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC)
|
Section 34. Offer
of evidence. — The court shall consider no evidence
which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is
offered must be specified. (35)
Section 35. When to make offer. — As
regards the testimony of a witness, the offer must be made at the time the
witness is called to testify.
Documentary
and object evidence shall be offered after the presentation of a party's
testimonial evidence. Such offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the
court to be done in writing. (n)
Section 36. Objection. — Objection
to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is made.
Objection
to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness
shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably
apparent.
An
offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within three (3) days after
notice of the unless a different period is allowed by the court.
In
any case, the grounds for the objections must be specified. (36a)
Section 37. When repetition of objection
unnecessary. — When it becomes reasonably apparent in
the course of the examination of a witness that the question being propounded
are of the same class as those to which objection has been made, whether such
objection was sustained or overruled, it shall not be necessary to repeat the
objection, it being sufficient for the adverse party to record his continuing
objection to such class of questions. (37a)
Section 38. Ruling. — The
ruling of the court must be given immediately after the objection is made,
unless the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the
question presented; but the ruling shall always be made during the trial and
at such time as will give the party against whom it is made an opportunity to
meet the situation presented by the ruling.
The
reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated. However,
if the objection is based on two or more grounds, a ruling sustaining the
objection on one or some of them must specify the ground or grounds relied
upon. (38a)
Section 39. Striking out answer. — Should
a witness answer the question before the adverse party had the opportunity to
voice fully its objection to the same, and such objection is found to be
meritorious, the court shall sustain the objection and order the answer given
to be stricken off the record.
On
proper motion, the court may also order the striking out of answers which are
incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise improper. (n)
Section 40. Tender of excluded evidence. — If
documents or things offered in evidence are excluded by the court, the
offeror may have the same attached to or made part of the record. If the
evidence excluded is oral, the offeror may state for the record the name and
other personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of the proposed
testimony. (n)
|
Section 6. Offer of and objections to testimony in
judicial affidavit. - The party presenting the judicial affidavit of
his witness in place of direct testimony shall state the purpose of such
testimony at the start of the presentation of the witness. The adverse party
may move to disqualify the witness or to strike out his affidavit or any of
the answers found in it on ground of inadmissibility. The court shall
promptly rule on the motion and, if granted, shall cause the marking of any
excluded answer by placing it in brackets under the initials of an authorized
court personnel, without prejudice to a tender of excluded evidence under
Section 40 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
Section 7. Examination of the witness on his
judicial affidavit. - The adverse party shall have the right to
cross-examine the witness on his judicial affidavit and on the exhibits
attached to the same. The party who presents the witness may also examine him
as on re-direct. In every case, the court shall take active part in examining
the witness to determine his credibility as well as the truth of his
testimony and to elicit the answers that it needs for resolving the issues.
Section 8. Oral offer of and objections to
exhibits. - (a) Upon the termination of the testimony of his last
witness, a party shall immediately make an oral offer of evidence of his
documentary or object exhibits, piece by piece, in their chronological order,
stating the purpose or purposes for which he offers the particular exhibit.
(b) After each
piece of exhibit is offered, the adverse party shall state the legal ground
for his objection, if any, to its admission, and the court shall immediately
make its ruling respecting that exhibit.
(c) Since the
documentary or object exhibits form part of the judicial affidavits that
describe and authenticate them, it is sufficient that such exhibits are
simply cited by their markings during the offers, the objections, and the
rulings, dispensing with the description of each exhibit.
Potential
Ground for Objection would be as to the: 1) FORM and/ or 2) SUBSTANCE of the
Contents of the Judicial Affidavit
Section 3. Contents of judicial Affidavit. -
A judicial affidavit shall be prepared in the language known to the witness
and, if not in English or Filipino, accompanied by a translation in English
or Filipino, and shall contain the following:
(a) The name,
age, residence or business address, and occupation of the witness;
(b) The name and
address of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination of the
witness and the place where the examination is being held;
(c) A statement
that the witness is answering the questions asked of him, fully conscious
that he does so under oath, and that he may face criminal liability for false
testimony or perjury;
(d) Questions
asked of the witness and his corresponding answers, consecutively numbered,
that:
(1) Show the
circumstances under which the witness acquired the facts upon which he
testifies;
(2) Elicit from
him those facts which are relevant to the issues that the case presents; and
(3) Identify the
attached documentary and object evidence and establish their authenticity in
accordance with the Rules of Court;
(e) The
signature of the witness over his printed name; and
(f) A jurat with
the signature of the notary public who administers the oath or an officer who
is authorized by law to administer the same.
Section 4. Sworn attestation of the lawyer. -
(a) The judicial affidavit shall contain a sworn attestation at the end,
executed by the lawyer who conducted or supervised the examination of the
witness, to the effect that:
(1) He
faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions he asked and the
corresponding answers that the witness gave; and
(2) Neither he
nor any other person then present or assisting him coached the witness
regarding the latter's answers.
(b) A false
attestation shall subject the lawyer mentioned to disciplinary action,
including disbarment.
|
Comments:
1) Formal Offer v. Marking, Identification and
Authentication. Pursuant to Section 34, Rule 132, evidence must be
“formally offered” in order for it to merit consideration by the trial court.
However, mere marking, identification and authentication should not be equated
with formal offer.
-
“There is a distinction between identification
of a documentary evidence and its formal offer as an exhibit. The first is done
in the course of the trial and is accompanied by the marking of the evidence as
an exhibit, while the second is done only when the party rests its case.[1]”
-
TIMELY
OBJECTION-
-
Rule when
party is represented by several lawyers. – “It
has been held that where a party is represented by two attorneys, the fact that
the examination in chief of a witness has been conducted by one of them does
not warrant the court in refusing to receive objections by the other to
questions asked on cross-examination”[2].
-
Evidence ORALLY OFFERED- Immediately after the offer is made
-
OBJECTION to Question Propounded in the
course of examination of a witness- as soon as the grounds therefor shall
become reasonably apparent
NOTE: “Reasonably Apparent” means as a GENERAL RULE
that “An objection to the form of a question as leading must be interposed before
the question is answered”.[3]
“The
rule that objection is to be made when the question is propounded to the
witness and before he gives his testimony must be reasonably applied. Its
object is to prevent a party from ‘gambling on his answer’ by withholding his
objection until he discovers the effect of the testimony, and then interposing
his objection if the testimony is unfavorable”[4].
-
Evidence OFFERED IN WRITING- Shall be objected to within three (3) days
after notice of the offer UNLESS a different period is given by the Court.
PREMATURE
OBJECTION- “An objection to
evidence cannot be made in advance of the offer of the evidence sought to be
introduced.”[5]
OBJECTION MUST BE
SPECIFIC. Grounds.
a) Question
is Leading
b) Calls for
Hearsay Evidence
c) Lack of
Basis, or Assumes a Fact Not in Established
d) Question invades field of confidential
communication
e)
Vague
f) Calls for conclusion of law
g) Calls for conclusion of fact
h) Argumentative
i) The proper foundation has not been laid
j) Calls for opinion of witness
k) Misleading
l) Already answered
m) Witness is incompetent
n) Inadmissible under the Parol Evidence Rule
o) Question attempts to elicit self-serving
evidence
p) Document offered is self serving; e.g. diary
q) Question seeks to elicit evidence which is
not the best evidence
r) Question calls for parol evidence of an
alleged agreement under the Statute of Frauds
s) Question is improper on cross-examination
t) Question is improper in re-direct examination
u) Question is improper in re-cross examination
2) When and How to Formally Offer.
2.1. Under the Rules
of Court:
· Testimonial Evidence: “At the time the witness is called to
testify”.
· Documentary or Object Evidence: : “After the presentation of a party’s
testimonial evidence”.
How?
“Such offer shall be
done orally unless allowed by the court to be done in writing”.
2.2. Under the
Judicial Affidavit Rule-
· Testimonial Evidence: Rules of Court apply
because there is no conflict
· Documentary & Object Evidence:
NOTE:
“upon termination of testimony of LAST WITNESS, documentary and object must be
ORALLY OFFERED piece by piece CHRONOLOGICALLY
3) Effect of Failure to Formally Offer Evidence.
In the case of Heirs
of Pedro Pasag rep. by Eufremio Pasag et al., v. Sps. Lorenzo and Florentina
Parocha et al.,[6]
the Supreme Court instructed on the effect of inordinate delay in
complying with the Rule on Formal Offer of Evidence, to wit:
“Waiver of the Offer of Evidence
The Rules of Court provides that the
court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered.[9] A
formal offer is necessary because judges are mandated to rest their findings of
facts and their judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the
parties at the trial.[10] Its
function is to enable the trial judge to know the purpose or purposes for which
the proponent is presenting the evidence.[11] On
the other hand, this allows opposing parties to examine the evidence and object
to its admissibility. Moreover, it facilitates review as the appellate court
will not be required to review documents not previously scrutinized by the
trial court.[12]
Strict adherence to the said
rule is not a trivial matter. The Court in Constantino v. Court of
Appeals[13] ruled
that the formal offer of ones evidence is deemed waived after failing to submit
it within a considerable period of time. It explained that the court
cannot admit an offer of evidence made after a lapse of three (3) months
because to do so would condone an inexcusable laxity if not non-compliance with
a court order which, in effect, would encourage needless delays and derail the
speedy administration of justice.[14]
Applying the aforementioned
principle in this case, we find that the trial court had reasonable ground to
consider that petitioners had waived their right to make a formal offer of
documentary or object evidence. Despite several extensions of time to make
their formal offer, petitioners failed to comply with their commitment and
allowed almost five months to lapse before finally submitting
it. Petitioners failure to comply with the rule on admissibility of
evidence is anathema to the efficient, effective, and expeditious dispensation
of justice. Under the Rule on guidelines to be observed by trial court
judges and clerks of court in the conduct of pre-trial and case of deposition
and discovery measures,[15] it
is provided that:
On the last hearing day allotted for
each party, he is required to make his formal offer of evidence after the
presentation of his last witness and the opposing party is required to
immediately interpose his objection thereto. Thereafter the judge shall
make the ruling on the offer of evidence in open court. However, the judge
has the discretion to allow the offer of evidence in writing in conformity with
Section 35, Rule 132[.]
On the other hand, Section 35 of
Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides that documentary and object evidence
shall be offered after the presentation of a partys testimonial evidence. It
requires that such offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the Court to be
done in writing.
The pre-trial guidelines and
Sec. 35 of Rule 132 jointly considered, it is made clear that the party who
terminated the presentation of evidence must make an oral offer of evidence on
the very day the party presented the last witness. Otherwise, the court
may consider the partys documentary or object evidence waived. While Sec.
35 of Rule 132 says that the trial court may allow the offer to be done in
writing, this can only be tolerated in extreme cases where the object evidence
or documents are large in numbersay from 100 and above, and only where there is
unusual difficulty in preparing the offer.
The party asking for such concession
should however file a motion, pay the filing fee, set the date of the hearing
not later than 10 days after the filing of the motion,[16] and
serve it on the address of the party at least three (3) days before the
hearing.[17] In
short, it is a litigated motion and cannot be done ex parte.
Counsels for parties should not however rely on the benevolence of the trial
court as they are expected to have thoroughly and exhaustively prepared for all
possible pieces of evidence to be presented and the purposes for which they
will be utilized. As a matter of fact, the draft of the offer of evidence
can already be prepared after the pre-trial order is issued, for, then, the
counsel is already fully aware of the documentary or object evidence which can
be put to use during trial. Remember that under the pre-trial guidelines,
the trial court is ordered to integrate in the pre-trial order the following
directive:
No evidence shall be allowed to be
presented and offered during the trial in support of a partys evidence-in-chief
other t
han those that had been identified
below and pre-marked during the pre-trial. Any other evidence not
indicated or listed below shall be considered waived by the
parties. However, the Court, in its discretion, may allow introduction of
additional evidence in the following cases: (a) those to be used on
cross-examination or re-cross-examination for impeachment purposes; (b) those
presented on re-direct examination to explain or supplement the answers of a
witness during the cross-examination; (c) those to be utilized for
rebuttal or sur-rebuttal purposes; and (d) those not available during the
pre-trial proceedings despite due diligence on the part of the party offering
the same.[18]
It is apparent from the foregoing
provision that both parties should obtain, gather, collate, and list all their
respective pieces of evidence whether testimonial, documentary, or object even
prior to the preliminary conference before the clerk of court or at the latest
before the scheduled pre-trial conference. Otherwise, pieces of evidence
not identified or marked during the pre-trial proceedings are deemed waived and
rendered inutile. The parties should strictly adhere to the principle of
laying ones cards on the table. In the light of these issuances and in order to
obviate interminable delay in case processing, the parties and lawyers should
closely conform to the requirement that the offer of evidence must be done
orally on the day scheduled for the presentation of the last witness.
Thus, the trial court is bound to
consider only the testimonial evidence presented and exclude the documents not
offered. Documents which may have been identified and marked as exhibits
during pre-trial or trial but which were not formally offered in evidence
cannot in any manner be treated as evidence. Neither can such unrecognized
proof be assigned any evidentiary weight and value. It must be stressed that
there is a significant distinction between identification of documentary
evidence and its formal offer. The former is done in the course of the pre-trial,
and trial is accompanied by the marking of the evidence as an exhibit; while
the latter is done only when the party rests its case.[19] The
mere fact that a particular document is identified and marked as an exhibit
does not mean that it has already been offered as part of the evidence.[20] It
must be emphasized that any evidence which a party desires to submit for the
consideration of the court must formally be offered by the party; otherwise, it
is excluded and rejected.[21]
Dismissal of
the Complaint on a Demurrer to Evidence
Having established that the
documentary evidence of petitioners is inadmissible, this Court is now tasked
to determine the propriety of the dismissal of the Complaint on a demurrer to
evidence.
A demurrer to evidence is an
instrument for the expeditious termination of an action;[22] thus,
abbreviating judicial proceedings.[23] It
is defined as an objection or exception by one of the parties in an action at
law, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient
in point of law (whether true or not) to make out his case or sustain the
issue.[24] The
demurrer challenges the sufficiency of the plaintiffs evidence to sustain a
verdict.[25] In
passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer, the court is
merely required to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient proof to
sustain the indictment or to support a verdict of guilt.[26]
In the present case, we have thoroughly
reviewed the records and are convinced that petitioners have failed to
sufficiently prove their allegations. It is a basic rule in evidence that the
burden of proof lies on the party who makes the allegations.[27] However,
petitioners did not substantiate their allegations and merely argued that the
Complaint should be threshed out in a full blown trial in order to establish
their respective positions on issues [which are] a matter of judicial
appreciation.[28]
-WHEN FORMAL OFFER NOT REQUIRED.
a.
Summary Proceedings because documentary
pieces of evidence are only attached to Position Papers
b.
Small Claims
c.
Quasi Judicial Bodies
d.
Documents Judicially Admitted or Taken
Judicial Notice of
4) Court’s
Ruling on Objections-
5.1.Best Practice in
Ruling Upon Objections- “In the
course of long experience- said the Supreme Court- “we have observed that
justice is most effectively and expeditiously administered in the courts where trivial
objections to the admission of proof are received with least favor. The
practice of excluding evidence on doubtful objections to its materiality or
technical objection to the form of the questions should be avoided. In a case
of any intricacy it is impossible for a judge of first instance, in the early
stages of the development of proof, to know with any certainty whether
testimony is relevant or not; and, where there is no indication of bad faith on
the part of the attorney offering the evidence, the court may as a rule safely
accept the testimony upon the statement of the attorney that the proof offered
will be connected later. Moreover, it must be remembered that in the heat of
the battle over which he presides a judge of first instance may possibly fall
into error in judging of the relevancy of proof where a fair and logical
connection is in fact shown. When such a mistake is made and the proof is
erroneously ruled out, the Supreme Court, upon appeal, often finds itself
embarrassed and possibly unable to correct the effects of the error without
returning the case for a new trial- a step which this court is always very
loath to take. On the other hand, the admission of proof in a court of first
instance, even if the question as to its form, materiality, or relevancy is
doubtful, can never result in much harm to either litigant, because the trial
judge is supposed to know the law; and it is his duty, upon final consideration
of the case, to distinguish the relevant and material from the irrelevant and
immaterial.”
The Court of Appeals, on its part,
observed that ‘ as a matter of practice, it is more advisable, in controversial
questions, to err in favor of, then against, an opportunity to introduce
evidence thereon, because of the considerable delay which would result, if a
higher court should believe that the resolution should have been otherwise and,
as a consequence, a new trial held”.[7]
5.2. TIME FOR RULING
ON OBJECTIONS. “A ruling
on objections to evidence should be made as soon as possible, either at the
time the objection is made, or during the trial and before judgment is
rendered, in time to give the opposite party is to rule positively, one way or
the other, when the evidence is offered, since if the court desires time to
consider the objection, it may suspend the introduction of evidence until it
has reached a conclusion, and, in some cases, it has been held error to admit
evidence “subject to objection”[8].
-“In Lopez
v. Valdez,[9] the
trial court’s ruling was that it “will be
taken into consideration”, on an objection to the introduction of secondary
evidence without first establishing the existence,
due execution and eventual loss or destruction of the originals, “The
Supreme Court, held that such is “prejudicial
to the interests of a litigant since it deprives the party against whom the
ruling was made an opportunity to meet the situation presented by the ruling. It
was deemed as REVERSIBLE ERROR”.[10]
-“Parties
who offer objections to questions on whatever ground are entitled to a ruling at
the time the objection is made unless they present a question with regard to
which the court desires to inform itself before making its ruling. In that
event it is perfectly proper for the court to take a reasonable time to study
the questions presented by the objection; but a ruling should always be made
during the trial and at such time as will give the party against whom the
ruling is made an opportunity to meet the situation presented by the ruling.x x
x[11]”
5) Repetition
of Objections. – Continuing Objections.
6) STRIKING
OUT EVIDENCE-
NOTE:
Under
the Judicial Affidavit Rule, the time to properly object is at the time when
the witness is called to the stand and his testimony is offered. This is
because the Judicial Affidavit takes the place of Direct Testimony offered
orally.
-However,
note the requirements as to form and substance, IF THEREFORE, the grounds for
objection becomes apparent only at the time when the examination is being made,
e.g. there is no translation of the testimony which was given in the local
dialect and not English or Filipino, then it would be too late to object under
the rules. But it is submitted that the RIGHT TO MOVE TO STRIKE OUT the
portions of the JA or the entirety if necessary, may be done still within
reasonable time after the ground became apparent.
7) TENDER OF EXCLUDED EVIDENCE (OFFER OF PROOF)
NOTE:
Effect of the Judicial Affidavit Rule Because the
testimonial evidence had been reduced to writing. The objectionable portions
shall be bracketed and marked as excluded evidence.
Tender
of Excluded Evidence. Remedy in case Court denies Admission of Evidence. In Catacutan v. People[12]the rule on Tender of Excluded Evidence was
discussed, thus:
Due process simply demands an
opportunity to be heard.[24] Due process is satisfied when the parties are afforded a fair and
reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy.[25] Where an opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or
through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process.[26]
Guided by these established
jurisprudential pronouncements, petitioner can hardly claim denial of his
fundamental right to due process. Records show that petitioner was able to
confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him, argue his case
vigorously, and explain the merits of his defense. To reiterate, as long
as a party was given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he
cannot be said to have been denied due process of law for the opportunity to be
heard is the better accepted norm of procedural due process.
There is also no denial of due process
when the trial court did not allow petitioner to introduce as evidence the CA
Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 51795. It is well within the courts discretion
to reject the presentation of evidence which it judiciously believes irrelevant
and impertinent to the proceeding on hand. This is specially true when the
evidence sought to be presented in a criminal proceeding as in this case,
concerns an administrative matter. As the Sandiganbayan aptly
remarked:
The RTC committed
no error in judgment when it did not allow the Accused-appellant to present the
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 51795 (Jose R. Catacutan
vs. Office of the Ombudsman). The findings in administrative cases are not
binding upon the court trying a criminal case, even if the criminal proceedings
are based on the same facts and incidents which gave rise to the administrative
matter. The dismissal of a criminal case does not foreclose administrative
action or necessarily gives the accused a clean bill of health in all respects.
In the same way, the dismissal of an administrative case does not operate to
terminate a criminal proceeding with the same subject matter. x x x[27]
This action undertaken by the trial
court and sustained by the appellate court was not without legal
precedent. In Paredes v. Court of Appeals,[28] this Court ruled:
It is indeed a fundamental principle of
administrative law that administrative cases are independent from criminal
actions for the same act or omission. Thus, an absolution from a criminal
charge is not a bar to an administrative prosecution, or vice versa. One thing
is administrative liability; quite another thing is the criminal liability for
the same act.
x x x x
Thus, considering
the difference in the quantum of evidence, as well as the procedure followed
and the sanctions imposed in criminal and administrative proceedings, the
findings and conclusions in one should not necessarily be binding on the other. Notably,
the evidence presented in the administrative case may not necessarily be the
same evidence to be presented in the criminal cases. x x x
In Nicolas v. Sandiganbayan,[29] the
Court reiterated:
This Court is not unmindful of its
rulings that the dismissal of an administrative case does not bar the filing of
a criminal prosecution for the same or similar acts subject of the administrative
complaint and that the disposition in one case does not inevitably govern the
resolution of the other case/s and vice versa. x x x
On the basis of
the afore-mentioned precedents, the Court has no option but to declare that the
courts below correctly disallowed the introduction in evidence of the CA
Decision. Due process of law is not denied by the exclusion of irrelevant,
immaterial, or incompetent evidence, or testimony of an incompetent
witness. It is not an error to refuse evidence which although admissible
for certain purposes, is not admissible for the purpose which counsel states as
the ground for offering it.[30]
At any rate, even
assuming that the trial court erroneously rejected the introduction as evidence
of the CA Decision, petitioner is not left without legal
recourse. Petitioner could have availed of the remedy provided in Section
40, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court which provides:
Section 40. Tender
of excluded evidence. If documents or things offered in evidence are
excluded by the court, the offeror may have the same attached to or made part
of the record. If the evidence excluded is oral, the offeror may state for the
record the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and the
substance of the proposed testimony.
As observed by the
appellate court, if the petitioner is keen on having the RTC admit the CAs
Decision for whatever it may be worth, he could have included the same in his
offer of exhibits. If an exhibit sought to be presented in evidence is
rejected, the party producing it should ask the courts permission to have the
exhibit attached to the record.
As things stand,
the CA Decision does not form part of the records of the case, thus it has no
probative weight. Any evidence that a party desires to submit for the
consideration of the court must be formally offered by him otherwise it is
excluded and rejected and cannot even be taken cognizance of on
appeal. The rules of procedure and jurisprudence do not sanction the grant
of evidentiary value to evidence which was not formally offered.
Section 3(e) of RA
3019, as amended, provides:
Section 3. Corrupt
practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of public
officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute
corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful.
x x x x
(e) Causing
any undue injury to any party, including the Government or giving any private
party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his
official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall
apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged
with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.
Under said
provision of law, three essential elements must thus be satisfied, viz:
1. The
accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or
official functions;
2. He
must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or inexcusable
negligence; and
3. His
action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government or gave
any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the
discharge of his functions.[31]
All the above
enumerated elements of the offense charged have been successfully proven by the
prosecution.
First, petitioner
could not have committed the acts imputed against him during the time material
to this case were it not for his being a public officer, that is, as the
Officer-In-Charge (Principal) of SNSAT. As such public officer, he
exercised official duties and functions, which include the exercise of
administrative supervision over the school such as taking charge of personnel
management and finances, as well as implementing instruction as far as
appointment of teachers.[32]
Second, petitioner
acted with evident bad faith in refusing to implement the appointments of
private complainants. As the Sandiganbayan aptly
remarked:
The records clearly indicate that the
refusal of Catacutan to implement the subject promotion was no longer anchored
on any law or civil service rule as early [as] the July 14, 1997 letter of the
CHED Regional Director addressing the four issues raised by the
Accused-appellant in the latters protest letter. x x x In light of the
undisputed evidence presented to the trial court that Catacutans reason for not
implementing the appointments was a personal dislike or ill feelings towards
Posesano, this Court believes that Catacutans refusal was impelled by an ill
motive or dishonest purpose characteristic of bad faith. x x x
x x x x
In the August 1,
1997 [m]emorandum issued by the CHED Regional Director, Catacutan was once
again directed, in strong words, to cease and desist from further questioning
what has been lawfully acted upon by competent authorities. Catacutan
deliberately ignored the memorandum and even challenged the private
complainants to file a case against him. Such arrogance is indicative of
the bad faith of the accused-appellant.
Yet again, the
[CSC] Regional Director wrote the Accused-appellant on September 5, 1997,
clarifying with finality the validity of the appointment. Still,
Accused-appellant failed to implement the subject promotions. This
stubborn refusal to implement the clear and repeated directive of competent
authorities established the evident bad faith of Catacutan and belies any of
his claims to the contrary.[33]
While petitioner
may have laudable objectives in refusing the implementation of private
complainants valid appointments, the Court fails to see how he can still claim
good faith when no less than the higher authorities have already sustained the
validity of the subject appointments and have ordered him to proceed with the
implementation. It is well to remember that good intentions do not win
cases, evidence does.[34]
Third, undue
injury to the private complainants was duly proven to the point of moral
certainty. Here, the private complainants suffered undue injury when they
were not able to assume their official duties as Vocational Supervisors III
despite the issuance of their valid appointments. As borne out by the
records, they were able to assume their new positions only on November 19, 1997. So
in the interregnum from June to November 1997, private complainants failed to
enjoy the benefits of an increased salary corresponding to their newly
appointed positions. Likewise established is that as a result of
petitioners unjustified and inordinate refusal to implement their valid
appointments notwithstanding clear and mandatory directives from his superiors,
the private complainants suffered mental anguish, sleepless nights, serious
anxiety warranting the award of moral damages under Article 2217 of the New
Civil Code.
At this point, the
Court just needs to stress that the foregoing are factual matters that were
threshed out and decided upon by the trial court which were subsequently
affirmed by the Sandiganbayan. Where the factual findings of
both the trial court and the appellate court coincide, the same are binding on
this Court. In any event, apart from these factual findings of the lower
courts, this Court in its own assessment and review of the records considers
the findings in order.
[1] Interpacific Transit, Inc. v. Aviles, 186 SCRA 385
[2] Baumier v. Antiau, 65 Mich. 3. 31 N.W., 888 as cited on p. 406
Evidence Volume VII Part II by Vicente Francisco, 1997 Edition
[3] Perry v. New England Trans. Co., 45 A. 2d 481
[4] Brownell v. Moorehead, 165 P. 408, 65 Okl. 218.
[5] See p. 403 Evidence Volume VII Part II By Vicente Francisco, 1997
Edition
[6] G.R. No. 155483, April 27, 2007
[7] See p. 413, Evidence by Francisco, Ibid. citing Prats and Co., v. Phoenix Insurance Co., 52 Phil. 807;
816, 817; Banaria v. Banaria et al, CA-G.R. No. L-4142-R, May 31, 1950; Obispo
et al., v. Obispo, 50 O.G. 614 and Querubin v. Mamuri, (CA) 47 Off. Gaz. 4701
[8] Lacdan v. Teruel, 51 O.G. 1437
[9] 32 Phil. 644
[10] See pp. 356-357, Evidence (The Bar Lectures Series) by Williard B.
Riano, 2016
[11] Lopez v. Valdez, Id.
[12] G.R. No. 175991, August 31, 2011
