Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Domingo Roco Vs Hon. Contreras Rem - Rev

    Uploaded by

    Vanessa
    291 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute between Domingo Roco and Cals Poultry Supply Corporation over bounced checks issued by Roco as payment. Roco requested subpoenas to compel testimony and documents from Cals representatives in his criminal case for violating the Bouncing Checks law. The lower courts denied this request. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the documents requested were not prima facie relevant to proving Roco's defense of payment, and compelling their production would only delay the criminal proceedings.

    Original Description:

    Domingo Roco vs Hon. Contreras Rem.Rev

    Original Title

    Domingo Roco vs Hon. Contreras Rem.rev

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case involves a dispute between Domingo Roco and Cals Poultry Supply Corporation over bounced checks issued by Roco as payment. Roco requested subpoenas to compel testimony and documents from Cals representatives in his criminal case for violating the Bouncing Checks law. The lower courts denied this request. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the documents requested were not prima facie relevant to proving Roco's defense of payment, and compelling their production would only delay the criminal proceedings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    291 views2 pages

    Domingo Roco Vs Hon. Contreras Rem - Rev

    Uploaded by

    Vanessa
    This case involves a dispute between Domingo Roco and Cals Poultry Supply Corporation over bounced checks issued by Roco as payment. Roco requested subpoenas to compel testimony and documents from Cals representatives in his criminal case for violating the Bouncing Checks law. The lower courts denied this request. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the documents requested were not prima facie relevant to proving Roco's defense of payment, and compelling their production would only delay the criminal proceedings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    DOMINGO ROCO vs HON. EDWARD B.

    CONTRERAS, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


    and CALS POULTRY SUPPLY CORPORATION.

    Facts:

    1. Petitioner Roco was engaged in the business of buying and selling of dressed chicken,
    thereby, he purchased his supply to respondent Cals Poultry managed by Danilo Yap. He
    issued five (5) PDC as his payment.

    2. When Cals Poultry deposited the said checks, it was then dishonored having been against a
    closed account. With this, respondent filed a case in violation of BP 22 Law.

    3. Roco filed a case before the BIR against Cals Poultry stating that it violated the NIRC Code
    for not issuing Official Receipt, however, said case was dismissed by the BIR stating that
    issuance of a sales invoice will be given upon full payment of the customer to its purchases.

    4. The MTCC - Roxas ruled in favor of the Cals Poultry even without the evidence of Roco
    hence he filed an appeal before the RTC. The RTC agreed to Roco thereby it remanded the
    case to MTC for proper hearing of the case and to allow Roco to present his evidence.

    5. Subsequent to the pending of the criminal case, Roco filed with the MTCC a Request for
    Issuance of Subpoena Ad Testificandum and Subpoena Duces Tecum, for the personal
    appearance of Yap et.al. And to bring with them certain enumerated documents.

    6. The MTCC, RTC and the CA were all denied said request, hence, petition before the Court.

    Issue:

    Whether or not the three (3) courts committed reversible error in denying Roco's request for
    the issuance of subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena duces tecum in connection with the
    five (5) criminal cases for violation of BP 22 filed against him.

    Ruling:

    No, the three courts were correct in denying Roco's request.

    Well-settled is the rule that before a subpoena duces tecum may issue, the court must first be
    satisfied that the following requisites are present: (1) the books, documents or other things
    requested must appear prima facierelevant to the issue subject of the controversy (test of
    relevancy); and (2) such books must be reasonably described by the parties to be readily
    identified (test of definiteness).
    In determining whether the production of the documents described in a subpoena duces
    tecum should be enforced by the court, it is proper to consider, first, whether the subpoena
    calls for the production of specific documents, or rather for specific proof, and secondly,
    whether that proof is prima facie sufficiently relevant to justify enforcing its production. A
    general inquisitorial examination of all the books, papers, and documents of an adversary,
    conducted with a view to ascertain whether something of value may not show up, will not be
    enforced.

    The Court reiterated the following discussions regarding violations of BP 22: what the law
    punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check not the purpose for which it was issued nor
    the terms and conditions relating to its issuance. The mere act of issuing a worthless check is
    malum prohibitum.

    Based on the records below and as correctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, petitioner
    had been issued by Cals Corporation with temporary receipts in the form of yellow pad slips
    of paper evidencing his payments, which pad slips had been validated by the corporation
    itself. Clear it is, then, that the production of the books and documents requested by
    petitioner are not indispensable to prove his defense of payment.

    In short, the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum or ad testificandum to compel the attendance of
    Vivian Deocampo or Danilo Yap of Cals Corporation or their duly authorized representatives,
    to testify and bring with them the records and documents desired by the petitioner, would
    serve no purpose but to further delay the proceedings in the pending criminal cases.

    You might also like