Sebastian, Jr. v. Garchitorena [GR No. 114028] Case Digest

 

·         Sebastian, Jr. v. Garchitorena [GR No. 114028]

Facts:

            Special Prosecution Officer filed with the Sandiganbayan an Information for the crime of Malversation of Public Funds against Rosita C. Pada, Teresita B. Rodriquez, Rachel V. Torres, Lourdes A. Enriquez and Salvador C. Sebastian.  Rosita C. Pada, Rachel V. Torres, and Salvador C. Sebastian entered separate pleas of "Not Guilty".  The marking of the documents to be testified on by the lone prosecution witness, Auditor Lilibeth Rugayan of the Commission on Audit, who conducted the audit examination, took place before the Deputy Clerk of Court of the First Division of the Sandiganbayan. The marking of the exhibits was with the conformity of all of the accused and their respective counsel.

            All the accused (including petitioner) filed their "Joint Objections to Formal Offer of Evidence" on the principal ground that the sworn statements were "hearsay" evidence. The Sandiganbayan in its Minute Resolution admitted said evidence.

 

Issue:

            Whether or not the sworn statements of petitioner and his co-accused are admissible in evidence "as part of the testimony of the prosecution witness".

 

Held:

            YES. As a general rule, hearsay evidence is inadmissible. Thus, the rule explicitly provides that a witness can testify only on those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge, that is, which are derived from his own perceptions. However, while the testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by another person, if intended to establish the truth of the fact asserted in the statement, is clearly hearsay evidence, it is otherwise if the purpose of placing the statement in the record is merely to establish the fact that the statement was made or the tenor of such statement.

            In the present case, the sworn statements executed by the petitioner and co-accused were offered not to prove the truth or falsity of the facts stated therein but only to prove that such written statements were actually made and executed. As stated in the Resolution dated August 24, 1993 of the respondent court, Exhibits "D" up to "U" and "U-1" were admitted only as part of the testimony of Lilibeth Rugayan as Examining Auditor. Title II, Chapter I, Section 55 of P.D. 1445, otherwise known as the Government Auditing Code provides that "the auditor shall obtain through inspections, observation, inquiries, confirmation and other techniques, sufficient competent evidential matter to afford himself a reasonable basis for his opinions, judgments, conclusions and recommendations".

            It has been held in the case of Lumiqued vs. Exevea that the right to counsel is not imperative in administrative investigations because such inquiries are conducted merely to determine whether there are facts that merit disciplinary measures against erring public officers and employees, with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of government service.