You are on page 1of 1

DOMINGO DE GUZMAN

VS

SADIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Facts: The petitioner has a case against him in Sandiganbayan for violation of Sec. 3 of Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act for his alleged failure to account for P200,000.00 received for certain official
training programs of the DOA. The sandiganbayan and the court found the petitioner guilty as his guilt
was established by the lone prosecution witness Josephine Angeles testimony that no such training
programs were hel at the designated places and petitioner’s failure to present a single receipt to
support a due due disbursement of the P200,000.00, resulting from his former lawyer’s insistence in
filing a demurrer to evidence despite prior leave for that purpose having been denied by the
Sandiganbayan. The petitioner’s new counsel filed in his behalf an Omnibus Motion For Leave to Vacate
First Motion For Reconsideration In the Light of the present Developments And to consider Evidence
Presented Herein and to set aside Conviction. In this Omnibus Motion petitioner seeks to be relieved
from what he considers in the serious and costly mistake of his former lawyers in demurring to the
prosecution evidence after court leave was denied, the effect of which deprived him of presenting
before sa Sandiganbayan the pieces of documentary evidence that would have completely belied the
accusation. Attached in the motion are photocopies of the list of expenses and receipts showing the
disbursement of the P200k for training programs. Petitioner now appeals to the court sense of justice
and equity that these documents be summoned and appreciated by the Court itself or by the
Sandiganbayan after remanding the case thereto, if only to give him the final chance his innocence.

Issue: WoN the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the case as the petitioner’s Omnibus Motion
presents evidences that were not filed before because of the mistakes of his previous lawyers

Ruling:

Consequently, the receipts and other documents constituting his evidence which he failed to
present in the Sandiganbayan are entitled to be appreciated, however, by that forum and not this court,
for the general rule is that we are not tries of facts.

Basically, the SC granted the Omnibus Motion and considered the presentation of the
petitioner’s evidences for purposes of equity and just. The petitioner should not suffer and risk his
liberty because of the mistake of his previous counsel. However, the SC clearly expresses that it is not a
trier of facts. Hence, it remanded the case to the Sandiganbayan wherein the evidences are to be
appreciated.