REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

$JaniliganbapanQuezon City

Fifth Division

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Crim. Case Nos. SB-18-CRM-0551Plaintiff,

FOR: Violation of Section 3(e)of Republic Act No. 3019

- versus- Present:LAGOS, J., ChairpersonMENDOZA-ARCEGA, andCORPUS-MANALAC, JJ.

ROLEX T. SUPLICO, et. at.Accused,

Promulgated:oc ec 0

)(-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------)(

RESOLUTION

LAGOS, J.:

For resolution are the following: (1) accused Rolex T. Suplico'sSecond Motion to Submit Originals for Examination by the NB! ( SecondMotion, for short) filed on September 3, 2019; (2) the prosecution'sManifestation In Lieu of Comment and/or Opposition (Manifestation, forshort) filed on September 17, 2019; and (3) the Comment filed onOctober 1, 2019 by the NBI, represented by NBI Director Atty. Dante A.Gierran.

Accused Suplico claims in the instant Second Motion that at the lasthearing (preliminary conference) of this case on August 23, 2019, for the

/ .

{V(I

ResolutionSB-18-CRM-055IPeople vs. Rolex T. Suplico, et. al.Page 2 of 5

purpose of comparing the originals with the marked copies of the exhibits, theprosecution was accompanied by Lolita Soriano, Supervising AdministrativeOfficer of the Special Audit Office of the COA, Quezon City, who had in herpossession the alleged originals of the document which accused previouslysought to be submitted by the prosecution to this Court for examination by theNBI Questioned Documents Division. He explains that the previous motion!filed on April 22, 2019 was denied for lack of merit by this Court in its MinuteResolution, dated May 14, 2019, on the ground that the original copies of thedocuments subject of his motion are not in the possession or under the controlof the prosecution, hence, it cannot be compelled to produce the same. Amotion for reconsideration was thereafter filed on June 3, 2019 but the samewas denied in a Minute Resolution dated July 18,2019.

Relying on the pronouncements of this Court in its Minute Resolutionof July 18, 2019, accused now contends that during the hearing on August 23,2019 (preliminary conference), the prosecution has complied with all therequisites to allow the accused to make the instant Second Motion (to submitthe originals for examination by the NBI), more particularly, the presentationby the prosecution of the original copies of listed documents for comparison;and the submission of the name, designation and address of the person whohas custody of the documents.

Hence, this Second Motion praying for the issuance of: (1) a subpoenaduces tecum to Lolita Soriano, Supervising Administrative Officer of theSpecial Audit Office of the COA in Quezon City, directing her to submit thealleged originals to this Honorable Court; and (2) an order directing theNational Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Questioned Documents Division toexamine the originals of the said documents whether the same are originaldocuments or at least originally signed by the parties, and whether thesignatures of the accused were originally signed or merely superimposed onthe document using the copy and paste technology of a word processingprogram.

The prosecution, in its Manifestation, manifests that Director Pearl L.Ramos, Director IV, COA Special Audit Office (COA SAO), upon therequest of the prosecution on September 9, 2019 to comment on the motionof the accused Suplico, responded on September 12, 2019 that the request tosubmit or turnover the original documents to the NBI for purposes ofexamination cannot be granted. She suggested, however, that a request befiled with the NBI Questioned Documents Division, at the initiative ofaccused Suplico, that the examination of the subject documents be conductedin the Special Audit Office of the COA. The prosecution manifests further

Motion to Direct Prosecution to Submit Original of Certain Documents with Motion to Submit the saidOriginals to the Examination of the NBI Questioned Documents Division, with Motion to Hold in AbeyancePreliminary Marking of Exhibits of the Defense

ResolutionSB-18-CRM-0551People vs. Rolex T. Suplico, et. at.Page 3 of 5

that the Second Motion of accused Suplico is submitted to the sound discretionof the Honorable Court.

The NBI, represented by Director Atty. Gierran, in compliance with theOrder of the Court dated September 6, 2019, manifests that as of date there isyet no Order directing the NBI to conduct examination of the subjectdocuments; that the mandate of the Bureau is to investigate and prosecutecrimes, as such it is its beholden duty to uphold the right of citizens, and itcannot initiate an act without prior approval of the Court; otherwise, it pre-empts the wisdom of the Court. Director Gierran adds that the Bureaucommits to abide with the Order of the Honorable Court, once it orders theBureau to do so.

A cursory reading of accused Suplico's original motion filed on April22, 2019 reveals that accused claims therein that he never signed thequestioned documents and that his signatures therein were forgeries andsuperimposed, through the copy and paste technology of a word processingprogram. The case of Marquez vs. Sandiganbayan', is instructive on thepropriety of allowing the examination by the NBI of the alleged forgery, thus:

"In this case, the defense interposed by the accused Marquez was thathis signatures in the disbursement vouchers, purchase requests andauthorization were forged. It is a hornbook rule that, as a rule, forgery cannotbe presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidenceand the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery.

"Thus, Marquez bears the burden of submitting evidence to prove thefact that his signatures were indeed forged. In order to be able to dischargehis burden, he must be afforded reasonable opportunity to present evidence tosupport his allegation. This opportunity is the actual examination of thesignatures he is questioning by no less than the country's premier investigativeforce - the NB!. If he is denied such opportunity, his only evidence on thismatter is negative testimonial evidence which is generally considered asweak. And, he cannot submit any other examination result because thesignatures are on the original documents which are in the control of either theprosecution or the graft court.

"At any rate, any finding of the NBI will not be binding on the graftcourt. It will still be subject to its scrutiny and evaluation in line with Section22 of Rule 132. Nevertheless, Marquez should not be deprived of his right topresent his own defense. How the prosecution, or even the court, perceiveshis defense to be is irrelevant. To them, his defense may seem feeble and hisstrategy frivolous, but he should be allowed to adduce evidence of his ownchoice. The court should not control how he will defend himself as long asthe steps to be taken will not be in violation of the rules."

G.R. No. 187912-14, January 31, 201 1

ResolutionSB-l8-CRM-055IPeople vs. Rolex T. Suplico, et. al.Page 4 of 5

Records show that during the preliminary conference on August23, 2019, the defense counsel compared the exhibits marked by theprosecution with the documents in the custody of the COA, who wasrepresented by Lolita Soriano, Supervising Administrative Officer,Special Audit Office, who brought with her, as manifested by theprosecution, the original copies of the questioned documents whichaccused Suplico sought to be examined by NBI, as follows: (l) Exhibit"U" and all its submarkings; (2) Exhibit "V" to "V-1" and all itssubmarkings; (3) Exhibit "w" and all its submarkings; and (4) Exhibit"Z" to "Z-3" and all it submarkings.

It appearing that the alleged original copies of the questioneddocuments are in the possession of the Special Audit Office of the COAthereby satisfying the last requisite of Section 10, Rule 116 of the Rulesof the Court, the production before and examination by the NBI of theabovementioned documents is in order, subject to the pronouncementsin Marquez vs. Sandiganbayan that any finding of the NBI will not bebinding on the graft court, and further subject to such other conditions/protocols as prescribed by the Court, as follows:

1. The original copies of Exh. "U"; Exh. "V" to "V-I", "Exh."W" and Exh. "Z" to "Z-3", and all their submarkings, whichare in the possession of Special Audit Office, COA, or underthe control of the prosecution, must be produced, for thepurposes of comparison, photocopying and certification, set onthe scheduled preliminary conference for marking of additionalevidence for the defense on October 30, 2019 at 10:00 in themorning before the Division Clerk of Court;

2. Before the original copies are sent to the NBI for questioneddocuments examination, the photocopies of the subjectquestioned documents must be compared with the original andstipulated on by the parties as a faithful reproduction thereof,or if already compared during the preliminary conference onAugust 23, 2019, the same must be duly noted in the Minutesof the Proceedings. The certified photocopies of the originalsmay be used during the proceedings in lieu of the originalcopies while the latter remain unavailable;

3. Accused Suplico must produce before the Court original copiesof at least eight (8) handwriting exemplars which must bepublic documents (this includes notarized private documents)bearing his standard/specimen signatures, executed withinthree (3) months prior to or three (3) months after the executionof the questioned documents;

ResolutionSB-18-CRM-055lPeople vs. Rolex T. Suplico, et. at.Page 5 of 5

4. Faithful reproductions, as stipulated, of the questioneddocuments, together with the photocopies of the handwritingexemplars bearing accused Suplico's standard/specimensignatures, shall be furnished to the prosecution and submittedto the Court;

5. From receipt of the formal request to conduct the examinationon the subject questioned documents, the NBI QuestionedDocuments Division is directed to finalize and submit itsReport to the Court within a period of ninety (90) daystherefrom.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, accused Suplico's SecondMotion to Submit Originals for Examination by the NB! is GRANTED,subject to the conditions cited above. Accordingly, the Court hereby ordersthat:

1. a Subpoena duces tecum be issued to Lolita Soriano, SupervisingAdministrative Officer of the Special Audit Office of theCommission on Audit (COA) in Quezon City, directing her tosubmit the original copies of the questioned documents listed aboveto this Honorable Court;

2. the National Bureau of Investigation Questioned DocumentsDivision to conduct the examination of the subject questioneddocuments listed above and render a report on such examination.

The preliminary conference for the marking of additional evidence forthe defense shall proceed as scheduled on October 30,2019 at 10:00 in themormng.

SO ORDERED.

~~~LAGOSChairperson

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

MAR NNE.CORPU - MAN-ALAC

Asso iate Justice