THIRD DIVISION

FRISCO F. SAN JUAN, G.R. No. 173956

Petitioner,
Present:
Ynares-Santiago, J. (Chairperson),
- versus - Austria-Martinez,
Chico-Nazario,
Nachura, and
Reyes, JJ.
THE SANDIGANBAYAN and THE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Promulgated:
Respondents.
August 6, 2008
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

This petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assails the February
6, 2006 Resolution[1] of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 27808 granting
the prosecutions Manifestation with Motion for Additional Marking of
Documentary Exhibits and the June 21, 2006 Resolution[2] denying the motions for
reconsideration separately filed by petitioner and his co-accused.

Petitioner Frisco F. San Juan, in his capacity as Chairman of the Public Estates
Authority (PEA), together with 26 other accused, composed of PEA Board of
Directors, PEA Officers, Officers of the Commission on Audit and the contractor
of Central Boulevard Project (now the President Diosdado Macapagal Boulevard),
Jesusito D. Legaspi, were charged before the Sandiganbayan with violation of Sec.
3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019[3] in an Information which reads:
That in or about the period from April 1999 to August 2002, in Metro Manila,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused public
officials of the Public Estates Authority (PEA), namely: CARLOS P. DOBLE,
former General Manager (with Salary Grade 30) and ex-oficio member of the
PEA Board, BENJAMIN V. CARIO, PEA General Manager (with Salary Grade
30) and ex-oficio member of the Board, and other responsible public officials of
PEA, namely: FRISCO FRANCISCO SAN JUAN, former Chairman of the
Board, CARMELITA DE LEON-CHAN, DANIEL T. DAYAN, SALVADOR P.
MALBAROSA, LEO V. PADILLA and ELPIDIO G. DAMASO, all former
members of the Board, ERNEST FREDERICK O. VILLAREAL, Chairman of
the Board, and JOEMARI D. GEROCHI, ANGELITO M. VILLANUEVA,
MARTIN S. SANCIEGO, JR., and RODOLFO T. TUAZON, all Board members,
JAIME R. MILLAN, Assistant General Manager, MANUEL R. BERIA, JR.,
Deputy General Manager for Operations & Technical Services and Chairman of
the Ad Hoc Committee responsible for the bidding and award of the construction
contract for the President Diosdado Macapagal Boulevard Project, THERON
VICTOR V. LACSON, Deputy General Manager for Finance, Legal and
Administration and member of the Ad Hoc Committee, BERNARDO T. VIRAY,
Manager for Technical Services Department and member of the Ad Hoc
Committee, RAPHAEL POCHOLO A. ZORILLA, Project Management Officer,
ERNESTO L. ENRIQUEZ, Senior Corporate Attorney and member of the Ad
Hoc Committee, and CRISTINA AMPOSTA-MORTEL, Department Manager,
Legal Department, and other responsible public officials of the Commission on
Audit (COA), namely: MANUELA E. DELA PAZ, State Auditor V, ARTURO S.
LAYUG, State Auditor V and Chief of the Technical Services Audit Division A,
Technical Services Office, BENILDA E. MENDOZA, Supervising Technical
Audit Specialist, EPIFANIO L. PUREZA, Assistant Chief of the Technical
Services Audit Division A, JOSE G. CAPISTRANO, Technical Audit Specialist
II, and MA. CECILIA A. DELA RAMA, Technical Audit Specialist I, all of
whom were public officials during the times material to the subject offense, while
said public officials were occupying their respective positions as just stated,
acting in such capacity and committing the subject offense in relation to office
and while in the performance of their functions and duties, with manifest
partiality and evident bad faith (or at the very least, gross inexcusable negligence),
conspiring and confederating with accused JESUSITO D. LEGASPI, a private
contractor doing business under the name of J.D. Legaspi Construction, did then
and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally give unwarranted benefits,
advantage and preference to accused JESUSITO D. LEGASPI, through the
commission of numerous illegal related acts all pertaining to the President
Diosdado Macapagal Boulevard Project, such as (but not limited to) the bidding
out of the said project and illegally awarding the same to accused JESUSITO D.
LEGASPIs J.D. Legaspi Construction and approving the award of the project to,
as well as the Construction Agreement with, J.D. Legaspi Construction despite the
lack of compliance with the mandatory requirements and procedure for bidding,
even if no funds are yet available to finance the project, without the requisite
certificate of availability of funds and without complying with the mandatory
 conditions imposed by the Office of the President of the approval thereof, per
Memorandum dated 29 January 2000 from the Office of the Executive Secretary,
Malacaang, and approving/allowing several improper variation/change orders and
overruns to be implemented without the requisite presidential approval and the
appropriate funds, recognizing, affirming and causing the implementation of the
just-mentioned void contract, allowing and paying or causing the allowance and
payment of several claims of accused JESUSITO D. LEGASPI for initial contract
price, contract price adjustment, variation orders, overruns and other claims even
when the same were clearly improper, illegal and without the requisite
presidential approval, thereby paving the way for accused JESUSITO D.
LEGASPI to claim and receive undue payments from the Government totaling
millions of pesos in improper overprice, thereby causing undue injury and grave
damage to the government in the aggregate amount of at least FIVE HUNDRED
THIRTY TWO MILLION NINE HUNDRED TWENTY-SIX THOUSAND
FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY AND 39/100 PESOS (P532,926,420.39), more or
less, constituting the total illegal overprice paid to accused JESUSITO D.
LEGASPI for the subject Project.

CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]
When arraigned on January 21, 2005, petitioner and his co-accused pleaded not
guilty.

The People, represented by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), filed its
pre-trial brief with proposed Exhibits A to HHHH dated March 16,
2005. Petitioner filed his pre-trial brief on June 23, 2005.
Thereafter, the Sandiganbayan issued a Pre-Trial Order,[5] the pertinent portions of
which state:

The Prosecution reserves the right to present additional documentary evidence,

although this reservation was objected to by the accused on the ground that it
violates their constitutional right.[6]

xxxx

Accused Frisco F. San Juan reserves the right to present additional

documentary evidence.[7]

xxxx

This Pre-Trial Order shall bind the parties, limit the issues and control the
course of the trial, unless modified by the Court to prevent manifest injustice.

SO ORDERED.[8]
 On November 10, 2005, trial commenced with the OSP presenting Karen
Villamil as its first witness, without prejudice to the signing of the Pre-Trial Order
by the parties.

At the scheduled hearing on January 24, 2006, instead of proceeding with

the presentation of its evidence, the OSP filed a manifestation with motion for
additional marking of documentary exhibits.[9]

Petitioner filed an Opposition[10] alleging that the motion fails to comply

with the three (3) day notice rule, thus, it is fatally defective which must be
dismissed outright; that the prosecutions attempt to introduce additional evidence
after Pre-Trial has been completed, without petitioner having been confronted by
such evidence, violates petitioners fundamental rights under the Constitution; that
petitioners right to due process has been violated by the presentation of the
prosecutions additional evidence when such pieces of evidence ought to have been
presented during the pre-trial of the case; that the prosecution failed to show good
cause in order for the additional evidence to be accepted, since only those pieces of
evidence which are identified and marked are allowed by the court.

On February 6, 2006, the Sandiganbayan issued the herein assailed

Resolution[11] granting the motion of the OSP, the pertinent portion of which reads:
Acting on the Prosecutions Manifestation with Motion for Additional
Marking of Documentary Exhibits dated January 23, 2006, with the comments
and/or oppositions thereto separately filed by accused: (1) Layug, (2) de Leon-
Chan, (3) Pureza and Capistrano, (4) Legaspi, (5) Padilla, (6) Beria, Millan, Viray
and Zorilla, (7) San Juan, and (8)Amposta-Mortel, the Court resolves to GRANT
the aforementioned motion but only insofar as to allow additional marking of
documentary exhibits which have been sufficiently described in the said motion,
over the objection of the defense, in order to give the Prosecution the opportunity
to fully present its case, and considering that the Pre-Trial Order has not been
signed by the parties. The defense may register their objections to the
documentary exhibits at the time that the same are introduced in evidence. As
prayed for, the prosecution may present the additional documents enumerated in
its aforesaid motion for marking, and the same shall be included in its list of
exhibits in the Amended Pre-Trial Order to be issued by the Court.[12]

Petitioner and his co-accused filed separate motions for reconsideration but
were denied by the Sandiganbayan in its June 21, 2006 Resolution,[13] the pertinent
portions of which state:
 While it is true that pre-trial has already been terminated, records show
that, before the Pre-Trial Order dated November 7, 2005 was issued, the Court
made clear to all the parties, considering the numerous documentary evidence
sought to be marked and presented by the parties, that the said Order was without
prejudice to the comment [on the Pre-Trial Order] of the prosecution and the
accused; that is, the Court may still accept any modification of the said Order
from both the prosecution and the accused. Upon request of the parties, the Court
gave the prosecution and the accused a period of time to file a formal
manifestation with respect to some changes they would like to propose in the Pre-
Trial Order notwithstanding the commencement of the trial.[14]

xxxx

Apparent from the foregoing is the fact that while the pre-trial has
effectively been terminated, the Court gave both the prosecution and the accused
the opportunity to submit comments to the Pre-Trial Order or to modify their
submissions or in some instances, even to withdraw the stipulations they made
during the pre-trial. The Courts position is consistent with the exercise of its
discretion to decide how best to dispense justice in accordance with the
circumstances of the proceedings before it. The decision to grant the prosecutions
motion for additional marking of documentary exhibits is another exercise of this
judicial prerogative, which prerogative was made known to the parties in the Pre-
Trial Order dated November 7, 2005, when the Court stated that such was subject
to modification in order to prevent manifest injustice.

The guidelines on the conduct of the pre-trial, including A.M. No. 03-1-
09-SC, were prescribed by the Honorable Supreme Court to abbreviate court
proceedings, ensure prompt disposition of cases and decongest court dockets. The
Court does not mean to disregard or ignore these guidelines but the Court is
compelled to take into consideration, in the interest of substantial justice, the
various submissions of both the prosecution and the accused mentioned above in
connection with the agreements reached by the parties that they be allowed to
submit their comments on the pre-trial order, even while the trial had begun so as
not to delay the proceedings.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant Motions for

Reconsideration of the accused-movants are hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.[15]
Hence, this petition.

The issues for resolution are: (1) whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused
its discretion when it granted OSPs motion for additional marking of exhibits; and
(2) whether the admission of the additional evidence constitutes a violation of
petitioners constitutional right to due process.
 The petition lacks merit.

Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, reads:

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.

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.[16] Besides, 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.[17] Moreover,
under the above-cited Rule, the Court is granted the authority to set the hearing on
shorter notice upon showing of good cause.

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.[18] 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.[19]
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,[20] as in the
instant case. Thus, the Sandiganbayan correctly held that:

Apparent from the foregoing is the fact that while the pre-trial has
effectively been terminated, the Court gave both the prosecution and the accused
the opportunity to submit comments to the Pre-Trial Order or to modify their
submissions or in some instances, even to withdraw the stipulations they made
during the pre-trial. The Courts position is consistent with the exercise of its
 discretion to decide how best to dispense justice in accordance with the
circumstances of the proceedings before it. The decision to grant the
prosecutions motion for additional marking of documentary exhibits is another
exercise of this judicial prerogative, which prerogative was made known to the
parties in the Pre-Trial Order dated November 7, 2005, when the Court stated
that such was subject to modification in order to prevent manifest
injustice.[21] (Emphasis supplied)

There is likewise no merit to petitioners contention that his right to due

process was violated when the OSPs motion was granted. In its Resolution
of February 6, 2006, the Sandiganbayan declared, thus:

[T]he Court resolves to GRANT the aforementioned motion but only insofar as to
allow additional marking of documentary exhibits which have been sufficiently
described in the said motion, over the objection of the defense, in order to give the
Prosecution the opportunity to fully present its case, and considering that the Pre-
Trial Order has not been signed by the parties. The defense may register their
objections to the documentary exhibits at the time that the same are introduced in
evidence. x x x[22]

In its Resolution dated June 21, 2006, the Sandiganbayan also held that:
While it is true that pre-trial has already been terminated, records show
that, before the Pre-Trial Order dated November 7, 2005 was issued, the Court
made clear to all the parties, considering the numerous documentary evidence
sought to be marked and presented by the parties, that the said Order was without
prejudice to the comment [on the Pre-Trial Order] of the prosecution and the
accused; that is, the Court may still accept any modification of the said Order
from both the prosecution and the accused. Upon request of the parties, the Court
gave the prosecution and the accused a period of time to file a formal
manifestation with respect to some changes they would like to propose in the Pre-
Trial Order notwithstanding the commencement of the trial.[23]

Thus, petitioner can still file his objections to the documentary evidence
during trial on the merits of the case.

Finally, there is no basis to petitioners contention that the additional pieces

of documentary evidence were surprise evidence because during the filing of their
respective pre-trial briefs, both parties have made reservations to present additional
documentary and testimonial evidence, as may be necessary in the course of the
trial;[24] such reservations were incorporated in the Pre-Trial Order.
 WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED. The February 6,
2006 Resolution of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 27808 granting OSPs
Manifestation with Motion for Additional Marking of Documentary Exhibits, and
the June 21, 2006 Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration,
are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ

Associate Justice

MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA

Associate Justice Associate Justice

RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division
Chairpersons Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Courts Division.

REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice

[1]
Rollo, p. 25; approved by Presiding Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro and Associate Justices Diosdado M.
Peralta and Alexander G. Gesmundo.
[2]
Id. at 26-28.
[3]
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
[4]
Rollo, pp. 5-7.
[5]
Id. at 77-120.
[6]
Id. at 83.
[7]
Id.
[8]
Id. at 116.
[9]
Id. at 146-172.
[10]
Id. at 173-182.
[11]
Id. at 25.
[12]
Id.
[13]
Id. at 26-28.
[14]
Id. at 27.
[15]
Id. at 28.
[16]
People v. Leviste, G.R. No. 104386, March 28, 1996, 255 SCRA 238, 247.
[17]
Active Realty and Development Corporation v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 157186, October 19, 2007, 537 SCRA 116,
130.
[18]
Rollo, p. 146.
[19]
Id. at 27.
[20]
Tan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130314, September 22, 1998, 295 SCRA 755, 767.
[21]
Rollo, p. 28.
[22]
Id. at 25.
[23]
Id. at 27.
[24]
Id. at 46 & 54.