Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 71 views

    Marquez vs. Sandiganbayan 641 SCRA 175, January 31, 2011

    Uploaded by

    Mariea Olidan
    The anti-graft court denied Mayor Marquez's motion to have certain documents examined by the NBI to determine if his signatures had been forged. The Supreme Court ruled that this denial was an error, as Mayor Marquez has a constitutional right to due process, which includes presenting a defense. As the accused, Mayor Marquez bears the burden of proving his signatures were forged, but denying his request to have them examined prevented him from discharging this burden. The anti-graft court should have allowed the examination by the NBI to respect Mayor Marquez's right to present evidence in his defense.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Marquez vs. Sandiganbayan 641 SCRA 175, January 31, 2011

    Uploaded by

    Mariea Olidan
    71 views2 pages
    The anti-graft court denied Mayor Marquez's motion to have certain documents examined by the NBI to determine if his signatures had been forged. The Supreme Court ruled that this denial was an error, as Mayor Marquez has a constitutional right to due process, which includes presenting a defense. As the accused, Mayor Marquez bears the burden of proving his signatures were forged, but denying his request to have them examined prevented him from discharging this burden. The anti-graft court should have allowed the examination by the NBI to respect Mayor Marquez's right to present evidence in his defense.

    Original Title

    (1) Marquez v. Sandiganbayan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The anti-graft court denied Mayor Marquez's motion to have certain documents examined by the NBI to determine if his signatures had been forged. The Supreme Court ruled that this denial was an error, as Mayor Marquez has a constitutional right to due process, which includes presenting a defense. As the accused, Mayor Marquez bears the burden of proving his signatures were forged, but denying his request to have them examined prevented him from discharging this burden. The anti-graft court should have allowed the examination by the NBI to respect Mayor Marquez's right to present evidence in his defense.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    71 views2 pages

    Marquez vs. Sandiganbayan 641 SCRA 175, January 31, 2011

    Uploaded by

    Mariea Olidan
    The anti-graft court denied Mayor Marquez's motion to have certain documents examined by the NBI to determine if his signatures had been forged. The Supreme Court ruled that this denial was an error, as Mayor Marquez has a constitutional right to due process, which includes presenting a defense. As the accused, Mayor Marquez bears the burden of proving his signatures were forged, but denying his request to have them examined prevented him from discharging this burden. The anti-graft court should have allowed the examination by the NBI to respect Mayor Marquez's right to present evidence in his defense.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

    Marquez vs. Sandiganbayan

    641 SCRA 175, January 31, 2011

    Facts:

    COA discovered several anomalies involving Marquez the Mayor of city of Parañaque. Mayor Marquez
    requested that the disbursement vouchers, purchase requests, and authorization requests be referred
    to the NBI and that the cases against him be re-investigated, claiming his signatures in these vouchers
    and requests were fake. But the request of Marquez that the questioned documents be referred to the
    NBI was not acted upon.

    The anti-graft court denied his motion on the ground that the court can determine forgery from its own
    independent examination.

    Issue:

    Whether the anti-graft court erred in denying Mayor Marquez’s motion on the ground that it can
    determine forgery from its own independent examination.

    Ruling:

    Yes. the anti-graft court erred in denying Mayor Marquez’s motion on the ground that it can determine
    forgery from its own independent examination.

    The court reiterated that one of the most vital and precious rights accorded to an accused by the
    Constitution is due process, which includes a fair and impartial trial and a reasonable opportunity to
    present one’s defense. This is provided in Section 14, Article III of the 1987 Constitution: (1) No person
    shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law; (2) In all criminal prosecutions,
    the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be
    heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to
    have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory
    process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However,
    after arraignment, a trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has
    been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.

    Marquez bears the burden of submitting evidence to prove the fact that his signatures were indeed
    forged. In order to be able to discharge his burden, he should be given an opportunity to present his
    evidence to support his allegation. This is by examining his signature by the NBI, and in denying this
    opportunity his only evidence on this matter is negative testimonial evidence which is generally
    considered as weak. He cannot submit any other examination result because the signatures are on the
    original documents which are in the control of either the prosecution or the graft court. The court
    should not control how he will defend himself as long as the steps to be taken will not be in violation of
    the rules.
    CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

    The anti-graft court should allow him to refer the evidence of the prosecution to NBI for examination at
    the soonest time possible and for the latter to immediately conduct such examination and to submit the
    results to the court within a reasonable time.

    You might also like