14. San Juan v. Sandiganbayan GR. 173956 Aug.

6, 2008
Re: Basic Principles in Jurisdiction

(Crim Pro related)

Section 4, Rule 15 of ROC:

Sec. 4. Hearing of motion. Except for motions which the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights
of the adverse party, every written motion shall be set for hearing by the applicant.
Every written motion required to be heard and the notice of the hearing thereof shall be
served in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party at least three (3) days before the
date of hearing, unless the court for good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice.
Ratio: 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. 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, as in the instant case.

Facts:
Frisco F. San Juan (in his capacity as Chairman of the Public Estates Authority), together with 26
other accused, were charged before the Sandiganbayan with violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019, for
illegally awarding the President Diosdado Macapagal Boulevard Project to accused Jesusito D.
Legaspis J.D. Legazpi Construction and approving the award of the project to the same company
despite lack of compliance with the mandatory requirements and procedure for bidding, even if no
funds were yet available; as well as for causing the allowance and payment to Legaspi of undue
payments in improper overprice in the aggregate amount of P532,926,420.39.
The Sandiganbayan issued a Pre-Trial Order, whereby both parties reserved the right to present
additional documentary evidence.
Instead of proceeding with the presentation of its evidence, the Office of the Special Prosecutor
(representing the People) filed a manifestation with motion for additional marking of documentary
exhibits.
San Juan filed an Opposition, alleging that the motion fails to comply with the three-day notice
rule, thus violating his right to due process.
Issues:
Did the Sandiganbayan gravely abuse its discretion when it granted the OSPs motion for additional
marking of exhibits?
Did the admission of additional evidence constitute a violation of San Juans right to due process?
Ruling:
NO to both issues.
 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.
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.
Althought 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.
It cannot be said that there is a violation of San Juans right to due process because he can still file
his objections to the documentary evidence during the trial on the merits of the case.
It must be noted that both parties in this case made reservations to present additional documentary
and testimonial evidence, as may be necessary in the course of the trial; such reservations were
incorporated in the Pre-Trial Order.