Posted by: Stephanie Jurgen Tuquib on 19 July 2018
FACTS:
Petitioner Frisco F. San Juan, in his capacity as Chairman of the Public Estates Authority (PEA), together with other public employees that time were charged before the Sandiganbayan with violation of Sec. 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, for conspiring and confederating with accused JESUSITO D. LEGASPI, a private contractor doing business under the name of J.D. Legaspi Construction, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally give unwarranted benefits, advantage and preference to accused JESUSITO D. LEGASPI, through the commission of numerous illegal related acts all pertaining to the President Diosdado Macapagal Boulevard Project.
Trial commenced and at the scheduled hearing, instead of presenting its first witness, the Special Prosecutor filed a manifestation with motion for additional marking of documentary exhibits. Petitioner filed its opposition and moved for the dismissal of the same.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the motion for additional exhibits be given due course and whether or not the same is violative of the constitutional rights of the petitioners.
DECISION:
While it is true that any motion that does not comply with the requirements of Rule 15 should not be accepted for filing and, if filed, is not entitled to judicial cognizance, however, this Court has likewise held that where a rigid application of the rule will result in a manifest failure or miscarriage of justice, technicalities may be disregarded in order to resolve the case.16 Besides, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, the court may disregard procedural lapses, so that a case may be resolved on its merits based on the evidence presented by the parties.
In the instant case, petitioner was served with the Manifestation with Motion for Additional Marking of Documentary Exhibits on January 24, 2006, or two days prior to the scheduled hearing date on January 26, 2006.18 Although the three-day notice rule was not complied with, the Sandiganbayan allowed the motion based on good cause, i.e., that the markings of the additional documentary evidence at this period was due to the sheer volume of the supporting documents to the disbursement vouchers and the fact that such supporting documents were only recently completed and secured.
This Court allows a liberal construction of this rule where the interest of substantial justice will be served and where the resolution of the motion is addressed solely to the sound and judicious discretion of the court,20 as in the instant case.
There is likewise no merit to petitioner's contention that his right to due process was violated when the OSP's motion was granted.
Finally, there is no basis to petitioner's contention that the additional pieces of documentary evidence were "surprise evidence" because during the filing of their respective pre-trial briefs, both parties have made reservations to present additional documentary and testimonial evidence, as may be necessary in the course of the trial;24 such reservations were incorporated in the Pre-Trial Order.
