THE Sandiganbayan has denied a request by former ranking PNP officers for a forensic examination of documents in a corruption case involving alleged irregularities in a firearms license delivery contract signed in 2011.
In a four-page resolution penned by Associate Justice Sarah Jane T. Fernandez, the Sixth Division denied a motion filed by Police Chief Supt. (ret.) Raul D. Petrasanta and Sr. Supt (ret.) Allan Parreño asking the court to issue an order either to the National Bureau of Investigation’s Questioned Documents Division (NBI-QDD) or the PNP Crime Laboratory to examine some documentary evidence.
Associate Justices Kevin Narce B. Vivero and Michael Frederick L. Musngi concurred.
Petrasanta is the former chief of the PNP Firearms and Explosives Office (FEO) while Parreño is the former assistant head of the same office.
Specifically, the two defendants asked for an analysis, evaluation, and comparative examination of their signatures against the ones affixed on a document marked as Annex 14, which is an unnumbered resolution of the Firearms and Explosives Office (FEO) Accreditation Board pertaining to the application for accreditation of WerFast Documentation Agency as a courier service for the PNP licensing of firearms.
They also sought a similar process regarding a judicial affidavit of witness Honey Leth P. Tabios.
In addition, they asked the court to require the examiner/investigator to submit a written report in court and to testify on it during trial.
The case involved allegations that the accused PNP officials gave Werfast undue preference when it was awarded the P100 million contract to handle deliveries of firearms permits and licenses even if it was not duly accredited as a courier service by government regulatory agencies.
Prosecutors objected to the defendants’ motion, noting the defense did not include experts from the NBI-QDD or the PNP Crime Laboratory in their list of witnesses in the pre-trial order.
Likewise, they said the defendants have to first prove the admissibility of the documents as evidence, adding the court is not bound by the opinions of handwriting experts.
Former PNP chief Alan Purisima joined the prosecution’s objections, adding that Annex 14 is a mere photocopy hence could not be a valid basis for a handwriting examination.
“The Court resolves to deny accused Petrasanta and Parreño’s motion,” the Sandiganbayan declared.
Even as the court corrected the prosecution that it is discretionary on its part whether or not to allow introduction of additional evidence, it clarified that the defendants are required by rules to satisfy conditions pertaining to the necessity of the said documents for cross-examination or re-cross and rebuttal or sur-rebuttal; and that, despite diligent search, the same evidence were not available during pre-trial proceedings.
