Sandigan allows ex-Cebu mayor to scrutinize evidence

MANILA, Philippines — The Sandiganbayan has upheld its ruling allowing former mayor Esteban Sia of Rondo, Cebu to scrutinize the evidence of the prosecution in connection with the graft and malversation charges he is facing over unliquidated cash advances.

In a resolution promulgated recently, the Sandiganbayan’s Sixth Division denied the motion for reconsideration of the prosecution panel of the Office of the Ombudsman to reverse the court’s Sept. 17 ruling directing ombudsman graft prevention and control officer and prosecution witness Roderick Blazo to produce his report on the investigation into the alleged anomaly.

“To test the accuracy and truthfulness of Blazo’s testimony insofar as the report is concerned, Sia must be allowed to inspect the report and cross-examine Blazo,” the court ruling read.

The court found no merit in the argument of the prosecution that a witness could not be compelled to produce documents to be used for cross-examination by the defense. 

The prosecution argued that under Section 3, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, a witness  could ”only answer questions although his answer may tend to establish a claim against him.” Blazo’s report is confidential and disclosing it might be violating the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of Republic Act 6713 or the Code of Conduct for Public Officials and Employees, it added.

However, the sixth division said the provision does not prohibit the court from ordering a witness to produce a document mentioned during direct examination and be the subject of cross-examination by the adverse party.

On the prosecution’s confidentiality claim, the court said Section 3 (f) of the IRR of RA 6713 states that every government department, office or agency “shall provide official records or documents to any requesting public” except if the release of the document would interfere in law enforcement proceedings, deprive a person of his right to fair trial, disclose the identity of a confidential source or unjustly disclose investigative techniques or procedures.

 “The party invoking confidentiality bears the burden of proving that the document or information sought to be produced is indeed confidential,” the court said.

Filed by the ombudsman in 2016, the cases stemmed from Sia’s receipt of cash advances totaling P2,063,422.72 in 2009.

Sia failed to return or liquidate the cash advances “without justifiable cause and despite repeated demands,” the ombudsman said.

Sia’s receipt of the cash advances was unlawful as those were released other than for their stated purpose of official travel in violation of Commission on Audit Circular 97-002.