Roco vs. Contreras

Before a subpoena duces tecum may issue, the requesting party must satisfy two requisites: (1) the books, documents, or other things requested must appear prima facie relevant to the issue in controversy (test of relevancy), and (2) those items must be reasonably described so as to be readily identified (test of definiteness). A general inquisitorial examination of an adversary’s records will not be enforced; the party must show by clear and unequivocal proof that the precise document sought contains evidence relevant and material to the issue before the court.

Petitioner Domingo Roco was engaged in the business of buying and selling dressed chicken. In 1993, he purchased supplies from private respondent Cal’s Poultry Supply Corporation, a domestic corporation managed by Danilo Yap. Roco paid for the purchases with five checks drawn against his account with the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank. The checks were dishonored for having been drawn against a closed account, prompting Cal’s Corporation to file criminal complaints for violation of B.P. 22. Five informations were filed before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Roxas City. During the remand of the cases for reception of defense evidence, Roco requested subpoenas for the production of Cal’s Corporation’s sales and accounting records, ostensibly to prove payment. The trial court denied the request, a denial sustained through the appellate hierarchy, culminating in this petition.

• The Bounced Checks and Criminal Charges: Petitioner Domingo Roco bought dressed chicken from private respondent Cal’s Poultry Supply Corporation in 1993. As payment, he drew five checks payable to Cal’s Corporation against his PCIB account: Check No. 004502 dated 26 April 1993 for P329,931.40; Check No. 004503 dated 4 May 1993 for P319,314.40; Check No. 004507 dated 19 May 1993 for P380,560.20; Check No. 004511 dated 26 May 1993 for P258,660.20; and Check No. 004523 dated 22 May 1993 for P141,738.55. Cal’s Corporation deposited the checks but they were dishonored for having been drawn against a closed account. Criminal complaints for violation of B.P. 22 ensued, and five informations were filed before the MTCC, Roxas City.

• Petitioner’s Denunciation and BIR Investigation: Before trial, Roco filed a denunciation letter with the BIR against Cal’s Corporation for alleged failure to issue commercial invoices. The BIR investigation, however, found no prima facie case of tax evasion. It disclosed that Cal’s Corporation deferred issuing sales invoices because its sales on account were still unpaid, and with respect to Roco, no invoices could yet be issued precisely because his payment checks had been dishonored.

• Procedural History Before the MTCC: After the prosecution rested, the MTCC deemed the cases submitted for decision due to Roco’s failure to present evidence and convicted him. The RTC vacated the conviction on due process grounds and remanded the cases for reception of defense evidence. During the remanded proceedings, Roco filed a “Request for Issuance of Subpoena Ad Testificandum and Subpoena Duces Tecum” on 11 March 1999.

• The Subpoena Request: The request sought to compel Vivian Deocampo or Danilo Yap of Cal’s Corporation, or their authorized representatives, to testify on 19 May 1999 and to bring sales journals, accounts receivable ledgers, sales ledgers, audited income statements, audited balance sheets, and income tax returns for various years from 1993 to 1999. The prosecution initially did not object, and on 19 May 1999, Acting Judge Geomer C. Delfin granted the request and ordered the issuance of subpoenas. At the trial on 14 July 1999, the private prosecutor objected to the subpoenas; petitioner invoked the finality of Judge Delfin’s order. The MTCC allowed the prosecution to file an opposition.

• The Prosecution’s Opposition: The prosecution opposed on the grounds that: (a) Vivian Deocampo had previously testified that the audited income statements, audited balance sheets, and income tax returns for 1993–1997 were burned; (b) Cal’s Corporation did not maintain a sales ledger for 1993; and (c) the accounts receivable ledger, income statement, and balance sheet for certain periods could not be produced because the corporation was transitioning to a computerized accounting system. Cal’s Corporation itself maintained that the documents were immaterial and irrelevant to the B.P. 22 charges.

• Denial by the MTCC: In a resolution dated 19 October 1999, the MTCC, through its regular presiding judge, Judge Edward B. Contreras, denied the request on two grounds: the requested documents were immaterial to the issues, and issuing subpoenas would unduly delay the proceedings. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

• Existence of Temporary Receipts: It was established that petitioner had been issued temporary receipts in the form of yellow pad slips of paper evidencing his payments, all validated by Cal’s Corporation.

• Violation of Right to Compulsory Process: Petitioner argued that the denial of the request for subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum violated his constitutional right to compulsory process under Article III, Section 14(2) of the Constitution, which guarantees an accused the right to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.

• Balancing of Interests: Petitioner maintained that there must be a balancing of interests between the right of an accused to prove his innocence and the complainant’s right to a speedy disposition of the case, implying that the denial unjustly prioritized speed over his defense.

• Immateriality and Irrelevancy of Documents: Respondent Cal’s Poultry Supply Corporation maintained that the requested books, ledgers, and other records were immaterial and irrelevant to the crimes charged. The gravamen of B.P. 22 is the issuance of a worthless check; the documents did not pertain to the elements of the offense.

• Unavailability and improper purpose: The prosecution argued that many of the documents had been burned or were not maintained. It further contended that the request was a dilatory tactic that would only unduly delay the trial without producing relevant evidence.

• Denial of Subpoena: Whether the denial of petitioner’s request for the issuance of subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena duces tecum was violative of his constitutional right to compulsory process and constituted reversible error on the part of the MTCC, RTC, and Court of Appeals.

• Denial of Subpoena: The denial was proper and did not violate petitioner’s constitutional right. A subpoena duces tecum may issue only upon satisfaction of two requisites: the test of relevancy and the test of definiteness. While the requested documents were described with sufficient definiteness, the test of relevancy was not met. The documents were not prima facie relevant to the B.P. 22 charges. The gravamen of the offense under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is the mere act of issuing a worthless check that is dishonored upon presentment; the purpose for which the check was issued is immaterial. Petitioner already possessed temporary receipts (“yellow pad slips”) that were validated by Cal’s Corporation and equally efficacious as proof of payment. Moreover, the requested Audited Income Statements, Audited Balance Sheets, and Income Tax Returns pertained to the years 1994 to 1999, while the subject transactions occurred in 1993; these later records could not reflect payments made in 1993. The request was characterized as a fishing expedition intended to delay the proceedings, a tactic the Court deeply deplored and refused to countenance.

• Subpoena Duces Tecum — Requisites— Before a subpoena duces tecum may issue, the court must be satisfied that: (1) the books, documents, or things requested appear prima facie relevant to the issue in controversy (test of relevancy); and (2) they are reasonably described by the parties so as to be readily identified (test of definiteness). A general inquisitorial examination of all the books, papers, and documents of an adversary conducted to ascertain whether something of value may appear will not be enforced. The party seeking the subpoena must demonstrate by clear and unequivocal proof that the precise document contains evidence relevant and material to the issue before the court.

• B.P. 22 — Elements of the Offense— The three elements of a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 are: (a) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply on account or for value; (b) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for payment in full upon presentment; and (c) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment. The offense is malum prohibitum, consummated at the moment a worthless check is issued; the purpose for which it was issued is immaterial.

• “In determining whether the production of the documents described in a subpoena duces tecum should be enforced by the court, it is proper to consider, first, whether the subpoena calls for the production of specific documents, or rather for specific proof, and secondly, whether that proof is prima facie sufficiently relevant to justify enforcing its production. A general inquisitorial examination of all the books, papers, and documents of an adversary, conducted with a view to ascertain whether something of value may not show up, will not be enforced.” — This passage, quoting H.C. Liebenow, articulates the court’s core justification for denying the subpoena: the request was an impermissible fishing expedition.

• “Well-settled is Our jurisprudence that, in order to entitle a party to the issuance of a ‘subpoena duces tecum,’ it must appear, by clear and unequivocal proof, that the book or document sought to be produced contains evidence relevant and material to the issue before the court, and that the precise book, paper or document containing such evidence has been so designated or described that it may be identified.” — Quoting Universal Rubber Products, this distills the two-part test applied by the Court.

• “xxx what the law punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check not the purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating to its issuance. The mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum.” — This statement, drawn from Aguirre v. People, explains why evidence of payment and underlying transaction records is not a defense that would compel production of the subpoenaed documents.

• H.C. Liebenow v. The Philippine Vegetable Oil Company, 39 Phil. 60 (1918) — Followed; distinguished the two types of subpoena and established the dual tests of relevancy and definiteness, holding that a general inquisitorial examination of an adversary’s records will not be enforced.

• Universal Rubber Products, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 215 Phil. 85 (1984) — Followed; reiterated the requirement of clear and unequivocal proof that the document sought contains evidence relevant and material to the issue and is described with sufficient definiteness.

• Aguirre v. People of the Philippines, 416 Phil. 163 (2001) — Followed; cited for the elements of B.P. 22 and the principle that the gravamen of the offense is the issuance of a worthless check, not the purpose or underlying transaction.

• Section 14(2), Article III, 1987 Constitution — Guarantees the accused the right to compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence. The Court held the right was not violated because the requested evidence failed the test of relevancy; the constitutional right does not encompass a fishing expedition.

• Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) — The elements of the offense were enumerated and applied to demonstrate the irrelevancy of the documents sought. The offense is malum prohibitum, focused solely on the issuance of a worthless check, making proof of payment or underlying transaction records unnecessary to the prosecution’s or defense’s case in chief.

Panganiban (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.