MA. IMELDA “IMEE” R. MARCOS-MANOTOC, FERDINAND “BONGBONG” R. MARCOS, JR., GREGORIO MA. ARANETA III, IRENE R. MARCOS-ARANETA, YEUNG CHUN FAN, YEUNG CHUN HO, YEUNG CHUN KAM, and PANTRANCO EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PEA)-PTGWO, Respondents.

CASE DIGEST

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Petitioner,

versus

MA. IMELDA “IMEE” R. MARCOS-MANOTOC, FERDINAND “BONGBONG” R. MARCOS, JR., GREGORIO MA. ARANETA III, IRENE R. MARCOS-ARANETA, YEUNG CHUN FAN, YEUNG CHUN HO, YEUNG CHUN KAM, and PANTRANCO EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PEA)-PTGWO,

Respondents.

G. R. No. 171701

February 8, 2012

FACTS:

After the People Power Revolution in 1986, President Corazon C. Aquino created the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) that was primarily tasked to investigate and recover the alleged ill-gotten wealth amassed by the then President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, relatives and associates.

On 16 July 1987, the PCGG, acting on behalf of the Republic with the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a Complaint for Reversion, Reconveyance, Restitution, Accounting and Damages against Ferdinand E. Marcos, who was later substituted by his estate upon his death; Imelda R. Marcos; and herein respondents Imee Marcos-Manotoc, Irene Marcos-Araneta, Bongbong Marcos, Tomas Manotoc, and Gregorio Araneta III.  

Four amended Complaints were thereafter filed imputingactive participation and collaboration of another persons, viz. Nemesio G. Co and Yeungs (Kam, Ho and Fan) of Glorious Sun Fashion Manufacturing Corporation Phils.; and, Imelda Cojuangco for the estate of Ramon Cojuangco and Prime Holdings, in the alleged illegal activities and undertakings of the Marcoses in relation to the ₱200 Billion Pesos ill-gotten wealth allegation.

Petitioner presented and formally offered its evidence against herein respondents. However, the latter objected on the ground that the documents were unauthenticated and mere photocopies.

On 2002, the Sandiganbayan issued a RESOLUTION ADMITTING all the documentary exhibits formally offered by the prosecution; however, their evidentiary value was left to the determination of the Court.

Subsequently, Imelda R. Marcos, Imee Marcos-Manotoc and Bongbong Marcos, Jr.; Irene Marcos-Araneta and Gregorio Ma. Araneta III;Yeung Chun Kam, Yeung Chun Ho and Yeung Chun Fan; and the PEA-PTGWO filed their respective Demurrers to Evidence.

On 2005, the Sandiganbayan issued a resolution, granting all the demurrers to evidence except the one filed by Imelda R. Marcos. The sequestration orders on the properties in the name of Gregorio Maria AranetaIII are accordingly lifted.

With regard to Imee Marcos-Manotoc and Bongbong Marcos, Jr., Irene Marcos and Gregorio Araneta III, the court noted that their involvement in the alleged illegal activities was never established; neither did the documentary evidence pinpoint their involvement therein. The court held that all presented evidence are hearsay, for being merely photocopies and that the originals were not presented in court, nor were they authenticated by the persons who executed them. Furthermore, the court pointed out that petitioner failed to provide any valid reason why it did not present the originals in court. These exhibits were supposed to show the interests of Imee Marcos-Manotoc in the media networks IBC-13, BBC-2 and RPN-9, all three of which she had allegedly acquired illegally, her alleged participation in dollar salting through De Soleil Apparel and to prove how the Marcoses used the Potencianos as dummies in acquiring and operating the bus company PANTRANCO.

Meanwhile, as far as the YEUNGS were concerned, the court found the allegations against them baseless. Petitioner failed to demonstrate howGlorious Sunwas used as a vehicle for dollar salting; or to show that they were dummies of the Marcoses. Again, the court held that the documentary evidence relevant to this allegation was INADMISSIBLE for being mere photocopies, and that the affiants had not been presented as witnesses.

ISSUE:

THE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN GRANTING THE DEMURRERS TO EVIDENCE FILED BY RESPONDENTS MA. IMELDA (IMEE) R. MARCOS AND FERDINAND (BONGBONG) R. MARCOS, JR.; RESPONDENT-SPOUSES GREGORIO ARANETA III AND IRENE MARCOS ARANETA AND RESPONDENTS YEUNG CHUN KAM, YEUNG CHUN FAN, AND YEUNG CHUN HO

RULING:

It is petitioner’s burden to prove the allegations; the operative act on how and in what manner must be clearly shown through preponderance of evidence.

The petitioner does not deny that what should be proved are the contents of the documents themselves. It is imperative; therefore, to submit the original documents that could prove petitioner’s allegations. Thus, the photocopied documents are in violation of best evidence rule, which mandates that the evidence must be the original document itself. Furthermore, petitioner did not even attempt to provide a plausible reason why the originals were not presented, or any compelling ground why the court such documents as secondary evidence absent the affiant’s testimony.

The presentation of the originals of the aforesaid exhibits is not validly excepted under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. Under Section 3 (d), when ‘the original document is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office,’ the original thereof need not be presented. However, all except one of the exhibits are not necessarily public documents. The transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) of the proceedings purportedly before the PCGG may be a public document but what the plaintiff presented was a mere photocopy of the purported TSN which was not a certified copy and was not even signed by the stenographer who supposedly took down the proceedings. The Rules provide that when the original document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office; a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof may prove its contents.

In order that secondary evidence may be admissible, there must be proof by satisfactory evidence of (1) due execution of the original; (2) loss, destruction or unavailability of all such originals and (3) reasonable diligence and good faith in the search for or attempt to produce the original. None of the abovementioned requirements were complied by the plaintiff.Exhibits ‘P’, ‘Q’, ‘R’, ‘S’, and ‘T’ were all photocopies. ‘P’, ‘R’, and ‘T’ were affidavits of persons who did not testify before the Court. Exhibit ‘S’ is a letter, which is clearly a private document. It is emphasized, even if originals of these affidavits were presented, they would still be considered hearsay evidence if the affiants do not testify and identify them.

Petitioner having failed to observe the best evidence rule rendered the offered documentary evidence futile and worthless in alleged accumulation of ill-gotten wealth insofar as the specific allegations herein were concerned.Hence, Sandiganbayan is correct in granting the respondents respective Demurers to evidence.