SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 171701. February 8, 2012.]

REPUBIC OF !"E P"IIPPINES, #e$%$%o&er, '(. )*. I)ED* +I)EE+ R. )*RCOS,
)*NO!OC, FERDIN*ND +BONGBONG+ R. )*RCOS, -R., GREGORIO )*. *R*NE!*
III, IRENE R. )*RCOS,*R*NE!*, .EUNG C"UN F*N, .EUNG C"UN "O, .EUNG
C"UN /*), a&0 P*N!R*NCO E)PO.EES *SSOCI*!ION 1PE*2,P!G3O, re(#o&0e&$(.
DECISION
SERENO, J p:
Before this Court is a Petition for Review filed by the Republic of the Philippines assailin the
Resolutions ! issued by the Sandianbayan in connection with an alleed portion of the "arcoses#
supposed ill$otten wealth% &Sa'(c
)his case involves P*++ billion of the "arcoses# alleed accu,ulated ill$otten wealth% 't also includes
the alleed use of the ,edia networ-s 'BC$!., BBC$* and RPN$/ for the "arcos fa,ily#s personal
benefit0 the alleed use of (e Soleil 1pparel for dollar saltin0 and the alleed illeal ac2uisition and
operation of the bus co,pany Pantranco North E3press, 'nc% 4Pantranco5%
)he 6acts
1fter the E(S1 People Power Revolution in !/78, the first e3ecutive act of then President Cora9on C%
12uino was to create the Presidential Co,,ission on :ood :overn,ent 4PC::5% Pursuant to
E3ecutive Order No% !, the PC:: was iven the followin ,andate:
Sec% *% )he Co,,ission shall be chared with the tas- of assistin the President in reard to the
followin ,atters:
4a5 )he recovery of all ill$otten wealth accu,ulated by for,er President 6erdinand E% "arcos, his
i,,ediate fa,ily, relatives, subordinates and close associates, whether located in the Philippines or
abroad, includin the ta-eover or se2uestration of all business enterprises and entities owned or
controlled by the,, durin his ad,inistration, directly or throuh no,inees, by ta-in undue advantae
of their public office and;or usin their powers, authority, influence, connections or relationship%
)aC'(S
4b5 )he investiation of such cases of raft and corruption as the President ,ay assin to the
Co,,ission fro, ti,e to ti,e%
4c5 )he adoption of safeuards to ensure that the above practices shall not be repeated in any
,anner under the new overn,ent, and the institution of ade2uate ,easures to prevent the occurrence
of corruption%
Sec % .%)he Co,,ission shall have the power and authority:
4a5 )o conduct investiation as ,ay be necessary in order to acco,plish and carry out the purposes
of this order%
4b5 )o se2uester or place or cause to be placed under its control or possession any buildin or office
wherein any ill$otten wealth or properties ,ay be found, and any records pertainin thereto, in order
to prevent their destruction, conceal,ent or disappearance which would frustrate or ha,per the
investiation or otherwise prevent the Co,,ission fro, acco,plishin its tas-% aCc&E'
4c5 )o provisionally ta-e over in the public interest or to prevent its disposal or dissipation, business
enterprises and properties ta-en over by the overn,ent of the "arcos 1d,inistration or by entities or
persons close to for,er President "arcos, until the transactions leadin to such ac2uisition by the latter
can be disposed of by the appropriate authorities%
4d5 )o en<oin or restrain any actual or threatened co,,ission of facts by any person or entity that
,ay render ,oot and acade,ic, or frustrate, or otherwise ,a-e ineffectual the efforts of the
Co,,ission to carry out its tas-s under this order%
4e5 )o ad,inister oaths, and issue subpoena re2uirin the attendance and testi,ony of witnesses
and;or the production of such boo-s, papers, contracts, records, state,ent of accounts and other
docu,ents as ,ay be ,aterial to the investiation conducted by the Co,,ission%
4f5 )o hold any person in direct or indirect conte,pt and i,pose the appropriate penalties,
followin the sa,e procedures and penalties provided in the Rules of Court% cS'&C1
45 )o see- and secure the assistance of any office, aency or instru,entality of the overn,ent%
4h5 )o pro,ulate such rules and reulations as ,ay be necessary to carry out the purpose of this
order%
)hus, nu,erous civil and cri,inal cases were subse2uently filed% One of the civil cases filed before the
Sandianbayan to recover the "arcoses# alleed ill$otten wealth was Civil Case No% +++*, now
sub<ect of this Petition%
On !8 July !/7=, the PC::, actin on behalf of the Republic and assisted by the Office of the Solicitor
:eneral 4OS:5, filed a Co,plaint for Reversion, Reconveyance, Restitution, 1ccountin and (a,aes
aainst 6erdinand E% "arcos, who was later substituted by his estate upon his death0 ',elda R% "arcos0
and herein respondents ',ee "arcos$"anotoc, 'rene "arcos$1raneta, Bonbon "arcos, )o,as
"anotoc, and :reorio 1raneta '''%
On ! October !/7=, the PC:: filed an a,ended Co,plaint to add Constante Rubio as defendant%
a1S()E
1ain on / 6ebruary !/77, it a,ended the Co,plaint, this ti,e to include as defendants Ne,esio :%
Co and herein respondents >eun Chun ?a,, >eun Chun &o, and >eun Chun 6an%
6or the third ti,e, on *. 1pril !//+, the PC:: a,ended its Co,plaint, addin to its rowin list of
defendants ',elda Co<uanco, the estate of Ra,on Co<uanco, and Pri,e &oldins, 'nc% *
)he PC:: filed a fourth a,ended Co,plaint, which was later denied by the Sandianbayan in its
Resolution dated * Septe,ber !//7%
)he alleations contained in the Co,plaint specific to herein respondents are the followin: .
*/% (efendants ',elda 4'"EE5 R% "arcos$"anotoc, )o,as "anotoc, 'rene R% "anotoc 4sic5
1raneta, :reorio "a% 1raneta ''', and 6erdinand R% "arcos, Jr%, actively collaborated, with
(efendants 6erdinand E% "arcos and ',elda R% "arcos a,on others, in confiscatin and;or
unlawfully appropriatin funds and other property, and in concealin the sa,e as described above% 'n
addition, each of the said (efendants, either by ta-in undue advantae of their relationship with
(efendants 6erdinand E% "arcos and ',elda R% "arcos, or by reason of the above$described active
collaboration, unlawfully ac2uired or received property, shares of stoc-s in corporations, illeal
pay,ents such as co,,issions, bribes or -ic-bac-s, and other for,s of i,proper privilees, inco,e,
revenues and benefits% (efendant 1raneta in particular ,ade use of 1sialand (evelop,ent Corporation
which is included in 1nne3 @1@ hereof as corporate vehicle to benefit in the ,anner stated above%
(1Ea)S
.!% (efendants Ne,esio :% Co, >eun Chun ?a,, >eun Chun &o and >eun Chun 6an are the
controllin stoc-holders of :lorious Sun 6ashion "anufacturin Corporation 4Phils%5% )hrouh
:lorious Sun 4Phils%5, they acted as fronts or du,,ies, cronies or otherwise willin tools of spouses
6erdinand and ',elda "arcos and;or the fa,ily, particularly of (efendant ',elda 4',ee5 "arcos$
"anotoc, in the illeal saltin of forein e3chane A by i,portin deni, fabrics fro, only one supplier
B a &on ?on based corporation which was also owned and controlled by defendant &on ?on
investors, at prices ,uch hiher than those bein paid by other users of si,ilar ,aterials to the rave
and irreparable da,ae of Plaintiff%
)hus, petitioner set forth the followin causes of action in its Co,plaint: C
.*% 6irst Cause of 1ction: BRE1C& O6 PDBE'C )RDS) B 1 public office is a public trust% By
co,,ittin all the acts described above, (efendants repeatedly breached public trust and the law,
,a-in the, liable solidarily to Plaintiff% )he funds and other property ac2uired by (efendants
followin, or as a result of, their breach of public trust, so,e of which are ,entioned or described
above, esti,ated to a,ount to P*++ billion are dee,ed to have been ac2uired for the benefit of Plaintiff
and are, therefore, i,pressed with constructive trust in favor of Plaintiff and the 6ilipino people%
Conse2uently, (efendants are solidarily liable to restore or reconvey to Plaintiff all such funds and
property thus i,pressed with constructive trust for the benefit of Plaintiff and the 6ilipino people%
'C&1a)
..% Second Cause of 1ction: 1BDSE O6 R':&) 1N( POFER B
4a5 (efendants, in perpetratin the unlawful acts described above, co,,itted abuse of riht and
power which caused untold ,isery, sufferins and da,aes to Plaintiff% (efendants violated, a,on
others 1rticles !/, *+, and *! of the Civil Code of the Philippines0
4b5 1s a result of the foreoin acts, (efendants ac2uired the title to the beneficial interest in funds
and other property and concealed such title, funds and interest throuh the use of relatives, business
associates, no,inees, aents, or du,,ies% (efendants are, therefore, solidarily liable to Plaintiff to
return and reconvey all such funds and other property unlawfully ac2uired by the, esti,ated at )FO
&DN(RE( B'EE'ON PESOS, or alternatively, to pay Plaintiff, solidarily, by way of inde,nity, the
da,ae caused to Plaintiff e2uivalent to the a,ount of such funds or the value of other property not
returned or restored to Plaintiff, plus interest thereon fro, the date of unlawful ac2uisition until full
pay,ent thereof% 'Sa)C(
.A% )hird Cause of 1ction: DNJDS) ENR'C&"EN) B
(efendants illeally accu,ulated funds and other property whose esti,ated value is P*++ billion in
violation of the laws of the Philippines and in breach of their official functions and fiduciary
obliations% (efendants, therefore, have un<ustly enriched the,selves to the rave and irreparable
da,ae and pre<udice of Plaintiff% (efendants have an obliation at law, independently of breach of
trust and abuse of riht and power, and as an alternative, to solidarily return to Plaintiff such funds and
other property with which (efendants, in ross evident bad faith, have un<ustly enriched the,selves or,
in default thereof, restore to Plaintiff the a,ount of such funds and the value of the other property
includin those which ,ay have been wasted, and;or lost esti,ated at P*++ billion with interest thereon
fro, the date of unlawful ac2uisition until full pay,ent thereof%
.C% 6ourth Cause of 1ction: 1CCODN)'N: B
)he Co,,ission, actin pursuant to the provisions of the applicable law, believe that (efendants,
actin sinly or collectively, in unlawful concert with one another, and with the active collaboration of
third persons, sub<ect of separate suits, ac2uired funds, assets and property durin the incu,bency of
(efendant public officers, ,anifestly out of proportion to their salaries, to their other lawful inco,e
and inco,e fro, leiti,ately ac2uired property% Conse2uently, they are re2uired to show to the
satisfaction of this &onorable Court that they have lawfully ac2uired all such funds, assets and property
which are in e3cess of their leal net inco,e, and for this &onorable Court to decree that the
(efendants are under obliation to account to Plaintiff with respect to all leal or beneficial interests in
funds, properties and assets of whatever -ind and wherever located in e3cess of the lawful earnins or
lawful inco,e fro, leiti,ately ac2uired property% '(E&Ca
.8% 6ifth Cause of 1ction B E'1B'E')> 6OR (1"1:ES B
4a5 By reason of the unlawful acts set forth above, Plaintiff and the 6ilipino people have suffered
actual da,aes in an a,ount representin the pecuniary loss sustained by the latter as a result of the
(efendants# unlawful acts, the appro3i,ate value and interest of which, fro, the ti,e of their wronful
ac2uisition, are esti,ated at P*++ billion plus e3penses which Plaintiff has been co,pelled to incur and
shall continue to incur in its effort to recover (efendants# ill$otten wealth all over the world, which
e3penses are reasonably esti,ated at P*C+ ,illion% (efendants are, therefore, <ointly and severally
liable to Plaintiff for actual da,aes in an a,ount reasonably esti,ated at P*++ Billion Pesos and to
rei,burse e3penses for recovery of (efendants# ill$otten wealth esti,ated to cost P*C+ ,illion or in
such a,ount as are proven durin the trial%
4b5 1s a result of (efendants# acts described above, Plaintiff and the 6ilipino people had painfully
endured and suffered ,oral da,aes for ,ore than twenty lon years, anuish, friht, sleepless nihts,
serious an3iety, wounded feelins and ,oral shoc- as well as bes,irched reputation and social
hu,iliation before the international co,,unity%
4c5 'n addition, Plaintiff and the 6ilipino people are entitled to te,perate da,aes for their
sufferins which, by their very nature are incapable of pecuniary esti,ation, but which this &onorable
Court ,ay deter,ine in the e3ercise of its sound discretion% ')cCS1
4d5 (efendants, by reason of the above described unlawful acts, have violated and invaded the
inalienable riht of Plaintiff and the 6ilipino people to a fair and decent way of life befittin a Nation
with rich natural and hu,an resources% )his basic and funda,ental riht of Plaintiff and the 6ilipino
people should be reconi9ed and vindicated by awardin no,inal da,aes in an a,ount to be
deter,ined by the &onorable Court in the e3ercise of its sound discretion%
4e5 By way of e3a,ple and correction for the public ood and in order to ensure that (efendants#
unlawful, ,alicious, i,,oral and wanton acts are not repeated, said (efendants are solidarily liable to
Plaintiff for e3e,plary da,aes%
'n the ,eanti,e, the Pantranco E,ployees 1ssociation$P):FO 4PE1$P):FO5, a union of Pantranco
e,ployees, ,oved to intervene before the Sandianbayan% )he for,er alleed that the trust funds in the
account of Pantranco North E3press, 'nc% 4Pantranco5 a,ountin to PCC ,illion rihtfully beloned to
the Pantranco e,ployees, pursuant to the ,oney <ud,ent the National Eabor Relations Co,,ission
4NERC5 awarded in favor of the e,ployees and aainst Pantranco% )hus, PE1$P):FO contested the
alleation of petitioner that the assets of Pantranco were ill$otten because, otherwise, these assets
would be returned to the overn,ent and not to the e,ployees% ()'1C&
)hereafter, petitioner presented and for,ally offered its evidence aainst herein respondents% &owever,
the latter ob<ected to the offer pri,arily on the round that the docu,ents violated the best evidence
rule of the Rules of Court, as these docu,ents were unauthenticated0 ,oreover, petitioner had not
provided any reason for its failure to present the oriinals%
On !! "arch *++*, the Sandianbayan issued a Resolution 8 ad,ittin the pieces of evidence while
e3pressin so,e reservation, to wit:
F&ERE6ORE, ta-in note of the ob<ections of accused "arcoses and the reply thereto by the plaintiff,
all the docu,entary e3hibits for,ally offered by the prosecution are hereby ad,itted in evidence0
however, their evidentiary value shall be left to the deter,ination of the Court%
SO OR(ERE(%
',elda R% "arcos0 ',ee "arcos$"anotoc and Bonbon "arcos, Jr%0 'rene "arcos$1raneta and
:reorio "a% 1raneta '''0 >eun Chun ?a,, >eun Chun &o and >eun Chun 6an0 and the PE1$
P):FO subse2uently filed their respective (e,urrers to Evidence% )&E(C1
On 8 (ece,ber *++C, the Sandianbayan issued the assailed Resolution, = which ranted all the
(e,urrers to Evidence e3cept the one filed by ',elda R% "arcos% )he dispositive portion reads:
F&ERE6ORE, pre,ises considered, the (e,urrer to Evidence filed by defendant ',elda R% "arcos is
hereby (EN'E(% )he (e,urrer to Evidence filed by defendants "aria ',elda "arcos "anotoc,
6erdinand "arcos, Jr%, 'rene "arcos 1raneta, :reorio "aria 1raneta ''', >eun Chun ?a,, >eun
Chun 6an, >eun Chun &o, and intervenor PE1$P):FO, are hereby :R1N)E(% )he se2uestration
orders on the properties in the na,e of defendant :reorio "aria 1raneta ''', are accordinly ordered
lifted%
SO OR(ERE(%
)he Sandianbayan denied ',elda R% "arcos# (e,urrer pri,arily because she had cateorically
ad,itted that she and her husband owned properties enu,erated in the Co,plaint, while statin that
these properties had been lawfully ac2uired% )he court held that the evidence presented by petitioner
constituted a pri,a facie case aainst her, considerin that the value of the properties involved was
rossly disproportionate to the "arcos spouses# lawful inco,e% )hus, this ad,ission and the fact that
',elda R% "arcos was the co,pulsory heir and ad,inistratri3 of the "arcos estate were the pri,ary
reasons why the court held that she was responsible for accountin for the funds and properties alleed
to be ill$otten% a)c'E&
Secondly, the court pointed out that Rolando :apud, whose deposition was ta-en in &on ?on,
referred to her as one directly involved in a,assin ill$otten wealth% )he court also considered the
co,pro,ise aree,ent between petitioner and 1ntonio O% 6loirendo, who disclosed that he had
perfor,ed several business transactions upon the instructions of the "arcos spouses%
Fith reard to the siblins ',ee "arcos$"anotoc and Bonbon "arcos, Jr%, the court noted that their
involve,ent in the alleed illeal activities was never established% 'n fact, they were never ,entioned
by any of the witnesses presented% Neither did the docu,entary evidence pinpoint any specific
involve,ent of the "arcos children%
"oreover, the court held that the evidence, in particular, e3hibits @P,@ 7 @G,@ / @R,@ !+ @S,@ !! and @),@
!* were considered hearsay, because their oriinals were not presented in court, nor were they
authenticated by the persons who e3ecuted the,% 6urther,ore, the court pointed out that petitioner
failed to provide any valid reason why it did not present the oriinals in court% )hese e3hibits were
supposed to show the interests of ',ee "arcos$"anoto- in the ,edia networ-s 'BC$!., BBC$* and
RPN$/, all three of which she had alleedly ac2uired illeally% )hese e3hibits also souht to prove her
alleed participation in dollar saltin throuh (e Soleil 1pparel% 'c&)CS
6inally, the court held that the relationship of respondents to the "arcos spouses was not enouh
reason to hold the for,er liable%
'n the ,atter of the spouses 'rene "arcos and :reorio 1raneta ''', the court si,ilarly held that there
was no testi,onial or docu,entary evidence that supported petitioner#s alleations aainst the couple%
1ain, petitioner failed to present the oriinal docu,ents that supposedly supported the alleations
aainst the,% 'nstead, it ,erely presented photocopies of docu,ents that souht to prove how the
"arcoses used the Potencianos !. as du,,ies in ac2uirin and operatin the bus co,pany Pantranco%
"eanwhile, as far as the >euns were concerned, the court found the alleations aainst the, baseless%
Petitioner failed to de,onstrate how their business, :lorious Sun 6ashion :ar,ents "anufacturin,
Co% Phils% 4:lorious Sun5, was used as a vehicle for dollar saltin0 or to show that they the,selves were
du,,ies of the "arcoses% 1ain, the court held that the docu,entary evidence relevant to this
alleation was inad,issible for bein ,ere photocopies, and that the affiants had not been presented as
witnesses%
6inally, the court also ranted the (e,urrer filed by PE1$P):FO% Fhile the court held that there was
no evidence to show that Pantranco was illeally ac2uired, the for,er nevertheless held that there was
a need to first deter,ine the ownership of the disputed funds before they could be ordered released to
the rihtful owner% a1'cE&
On *+ (ece,ber *++C, petitioner filed its "otion for Partial Reconsideration, insistin that there was a
preponderance of evidence to show that respondents "arcos siblins and :reorio 1raneta ''' had
connived with their parents in ac2uirin ill$otten wealth% 't pointed out that respondents were
co,pulsory heirs to the deposed President and were thus oblied to render an accountin and to return
the ill$otten wealth%
"oreover, petitioner asserted that the evidence established that the >euns were du,,ies of the
"arcoses, and that the Pantranco assets were part of the "arcoses# alleed ill$otten wealth%
6inally, petitioner 2uestioned the court#s rulin that the evidence previously ad,itted was later held to
be inad,issible in evidence aainst respondents, thus, deprivin the for,er of due process%
'nadvertently, petitioner was not able to serve a copy of the ,otion on respondents ',ee "arcos$
"anotoc and Bonbon "arcos, Jr% But upon reali9in the oversiht, it i,,ediately did so and filed
the correspondin "anifestation and "otion before the court% Nonetheless, this inadvertence pro,pted
',ee "arcos$"anotoc and Bonbon "arcos, Jr% to file their "otion for Entry of Jud,ent%
C'1&a)
On * "arch *++8, the court issued the second assailed Resolution, !A denyin petitioner#s "otion% )he
court pointed out its reservation in its Resolution dated !* "arch *++*, wherein it said that it would
still assess and weih the evidentiary value of the ad,itted evidence% 6urther,ore, it said that even if it
included the testi,onies of petitioner#s witnesses, these were not substantial to hold respondents liable%
)hus, the court said:
F&ERE6ORE, there bein no sufficient reason to set aside the resolution dated (ece,ber 8, *++C, the
plaintiff#s "otion for Partial Reconsideration is hereby (EN'E(% )he plaintiff#s "otion and
"anifestation dated January !7, *++8 is :R1N)E( in the interest of <ustice% )he "otion for Entry of
Jud,ent filed by defendants ',ee "arcos and Bonbon "arcos is (EN'E(%
SO OR(ERE(%
&ence, this Petition%
Petitioner raises the sa,e issues it raised in its "otion for Reconsideration filed before the
Sandianbayan, to wit: !C (Cc&1a
'% )&E S1N(':1NB1>1N ERRE( 'N :R1N)'N: )&E (E"DRRER )O EH'(ENCE
6'EE( B> RESPON(EN)S "1% '"EE(1 4'"EE5 R% "1RCOS 1N( 6ER('N1N(
4BON:BON:5 R% "1RCOS, JR%, CONS'(ER'N: )&1) "ORE )&1N PREPON(ER1N)
EH'(ENCE ON RECOR( CEE1RE> (E"ONS)R1)ES )&E'R CONN'H1NCE F')& 6OR"ER
PRES'(EN) 6ER('N1N( E% "1RCOS 1N( O)&ER "1RCOS (D""'ES 1N( 1BDSE(
)&E'R POFER 1N( 'N6EDENCE 'N DNE1F6DEE> 1"1SS'N: 6DN(S 6RO" )&E
N1)'ON1E )RE1SDR>%
''% PE)')'ON PROHE(, B> "ORE )&1N PREPON(ER1N) EH'(ENCE, )&1)
RESPON(EN)$SPODSES :RE:OR'O 1R1NE)1 ''' 1N( 'RENE "1RCOS 1R1NE)1
CONN'HE( F')& 6OR"ER PRES'(EN) "1RCOS 'N DNE1F6DEE> 1CGD'R'N:
BDS'NESS 'N)ERES)S F&'C& 1RE :ROSSE> ('S1(H1N)1:EODS )O )&E
:OHERN"EN), 1N( 'N 1 "1NNER PRO&'B')E( DN(ER )&E CONS)')D)'ON 1N( 1N)'$
:R16) S)1)D)ES%
'''% RESPON(EN)S '"EE, BON:BON:, 1N( 'RENE "1RCOS 1RE CO"PDESOR> &E'RS
O6 6OR"ER PRES'(EN) "1RCOS 1N( 1RE EGD1EE> OBE':E( )O REN(ER 1N
1CCODN)'N: 1N( RE)DRN )&E 1EEE:E( 'EE$:O))EN FE1E)& O6 )&E "1RCOSES%
&1a(cS
'H% )&ERE EI'S)S CONCRE)E EH'(ENCE PROH'N: )&1) RESPON(EN)S >EDN:
C&DN ?1", >EDN: C&DN 61N, 1N( >EDN: C&DN &O 1C)E( 1S (D""'ES 6OR )&E
"1RCOSES, 1N( DSE( )&E CORPOR1)'ON, :EOR'ODS SDN, 1S 1 CON(D') 'N
1"1SS'N: )&E 'EE$:O))EN FE1E)&% 1CCOR('N:E>, )&E S1N(':1NB1>1N ERRE( 'N
:R1N)'N: )&E'R (E"DRRER )O EH'(ENCE%
H% )&E (E"DRRER )O EH'(ENCE 6'EE( B> 'N)ERHENOR PE1$P):FO F')&
RESPEC) )O )&E P1N)R1NCO 1SSE)S S&ODE( NO) &1HE BEEN :R1N)E( S'NCE
1"PEE EH'(ENCE PROHES )&1) )&E S1'( 1SSE)S 'N(DB')1BE> 6OR" P1R) O6 )&E
"1RCOS 'EE$:O))EN FE1E)&, 1S BD))RESSE( B> )&E 61C) )&1) NO JD('C'1E
(E)ER"'N1)'ON &1S BEEN "1(E 1S )O F&O" )&ESE 1SSE)S R':&)6DEE> BEEON:%
H'% )&E S1N(':1NB1>1N#S RDE'N: F&'C& REJEC)E( PE)')'ONER#S
(OCD"EN)1R> EI&'B')S 1EEE:E(E> 6OR BE'N: @'N1("'SS'BEE@ ('REC)E>
CON)R1('C)S ')S E1RE'ER RDE'N: 1("'))'N: 1EE S1'( (OCD"EN)1R> EH'(ENCE
1N( F1S REN(ERE( 'N 1 "1NNER )&1) (EPR'HE( PE)')'ONER#S R':&) )O (DE
PROCESS O6 E1F% &('aE)
)here is so,e ,erit in petitioner#s contention%
)he "arcos Siblins and
:reorio 1raneta '''
Closely analy9in petitioner#s Co,plaint and the present Petition for Review, it is clear that the "arcos
siblins are bein sued in two capacities: first, as co$conspirators in the alleed accu,ulation of ill$
otten wealth0 and second, as the co,pulsory heirs of their father, 6erdinand E% "arcos% !8
Fith reard to the first alleation, as contained in pararaph */ of its )hird 1,ended Co,plaint
2uoted above, petitioner accused the "arcos siblins of havin collaborated with, participated in,
and;or benefitted fro, their parents# alleed accu,ulation of ill$otten wealth% 'n particular, as far as
',ee "arcos$"anotoc was concerned, she was accused of dollar saltin by usin :lorious Sun to
i,port deni, fabrics fro, one supplier at prices ,uch hiher than those paid by other users of si,ilar
,aterials% 't was also alleed that the "arcoses personally benefitted fro, the se2uestered ,edia
networ-s 'BC$!., BBC$*, and RPN$/, in which ',ee "arcos had a substantial interest%
'rene "arcos$1raneta, on the other hand, was accused of havin conspired with her husband,
respondent :reorio 1raneta ''', in his bein President "arcos# conduit to Pantranco, thereby pavin
the way for the President#s ownership of the co,pany in violation of 1rticle H'', Section A, pararaph *
of the !/=. Constitution% != cEaC)S
)o prove the eneral alleations aainst the "arcos siblins, petitioner pri,arily relied on the Sworn
State,ent !7 and the (eposition !/ of one of the financial advisors of President "arcos, Rolando C%
:apud, ta-en in &on ?on on various dates%
"eanwhile, to prove the participation and interests of ',ee "arcos$"anotoc in (e Soleil 1pparel and
the ,edia networ-s, petitioner relied on the 1ffidavits of Ra,on S% "on9on, *+ >eun ?wo- >in, *!
and Rodolfo H% Puno0 ** and the transcript of stenoraphic notes 4)SN5 ta-en durin the PC::
hearin held on 7 June !/7=% *.
1s to spouses 'rene "arcos$1raneta and :reorio 1raneta ''', petitioner sub,itted the 1rticles of
'ncorporation of Northern E3press )ransport, 'nc%0 *A the "e,orandu, of 1ree,ent *C and the
Purchase 1ree,ent *8 between Pantranco and Batanas Eauna )ayabas Bus Co,pany, 'nc%
4BE)BCo%50 the Confidential "e,orandu, reardin the sale of the Pantranco assets0 *= the 1ffidavit
*7 and the letter to the PC:: */ of (olores 1% Potenciano, owner of BE)BCo%0 the 1ffidavit .+ and
the "e,orandu, .! of Eduardo 6a<ardo, who was then the Senior Hice$President of the 1ccount
"anae,ent :roup of the Philippine National Ban- 4PNB5, which was in turn the creditor for the
Pantranco sale0 and the 1ffidavit of 6lorencio P% Eucio, who was the Senior 1ccount Specialist of the
National 'nvest,ent and (evelop,ent Corporation% .* (CESa'
Petitioner contends that these docu,ents fall under the Rule#s third e3ception, that is, these docu,ents
are public records in the custody of a public officer or are recorded in a public office% 't is its theory
that since these docu,ents were collected by the PC::, then, necessarily, the conditions for the
e3ception to apply had been ,et% 1lternatively, it asserts that the @docu,ents were offered to prove not
only the truth of the recitals of the docu,ents, but also of other e3ternal or collateral facts%@ ..
)he Court#s Rulin
Petitioner failed to observe the
best evidence rule%
't is petitioner#s burden to prove the alleations in its Co,plaint% 6or relief to be ranted, the operative
act on how and in what ,anner the "arcos siblins participated in and;or benefitted fro, the acts of
the "arcos couple ,ust be clearly shown throuh a preponderance of evidence% Should petitioner fail
to dischare this burden, the Court is constrained and is left with no choice but to uphold the (e,urrer
to Evidence filed by respondents% )1Sc'(
6irst, petitioner does not deny that what should be proved are the contents of the docu,ents
the,selves% 't is i,perative, therefore, to sub,it the oriinal docu,ents that could prove petitioner#s
alleations%
)hus, the photocopied docu,ents are in violation Rule !.+, Sec% . of the Rules of Court, otherwise
-nown as the best evidence rule, which ,andates that the evidence ,ust be the oriinal docu,ent
itself% )he oriin of the best evidence rule can be found and traced to as early as the !7th century in
O,ychund v% Bar-er, .A wherein the Court of Chancery said:
)he <udes and saes of the law have laid it down that there is but one eneral rule of evidence, the best
that the nature of the case will ad,it%
)he rule is, that if the writins have subscribin witnesses to the,, they ,ust be proved by those
witnesses%
)he first round <udes have one upon in departin fro, strict rules, is an absolute strict necessity%
Secondly, a presu,ed necessity% 'n the case of writins, subscribed by witnesses, if all are dead, the
proof of one of their hands is sufficient to establish the deed: where an oriinal is lost, a copy ,ay be
ad,itted0 if no copy, then a proof by witnesses who have heard the deed, and yet it is a thin the law
abhors to ad,it the ,e,ory of ,an for evidence% EC)S(a
Petitioner did not even atte,pt to provide a plausible reason why the oriinals were not presented, or
any co,pellin round why the court should ad,it these docu,ents as secondary evidence absent the
testi,ony of the witnesses who had e3ecuted the,%
'n particular, it ,ay not insist that the photocopies of the docu,ents fall under Sec% = of Rule !.+,
which states:
Evidence ad,issible when oriinal docu,ent is a public record% B Fhen the oriinal of a docu,ent is
in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents ,ay be proved be a
certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof%
Secs% !/ and *+ of Rule !.* provide:
SEC)'ON !/% Classes of docu,ents% B 6or the purpose of their presentation in evidence, docu,ents
are either public or private%
Public docu,ents are: &E)(1C
4a5 )he written official acts, or records of the official acts of the soverein authority, official bodies
and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a forein country0
4b5 (ocu,ents ac-nowleded before a notary public e3cept last wills and testa,ents0 and
4c5 Public records, -ept in the Philippines, of private docu,ents re2uired by law to be entered
therein%
1ll other writins are private%
SEC)'ON *+% Proof of private docu,ent% B Before any private docu,ent offered as authentic is
received in evidence, its due e3ecution and authenticity ,ust be proved either:
4a5 By anyone who saw the docu,ent e3ecuted or written0 or
4b5 By evidence of the enuineness of the sinature or handwritin of the ,a-er% (Cc'aE
1ny other private docu,ent need only be identified as that which it is clai,ed to be%
)he fact that these docu,ents were collected by the PC:: in the course of its investiations does not
,a-e the, per se public records referred to in the 2uoted rule%
Petitioner presented as witness its records officer, "aria Eourdes "ano, who testified that these public
and private docu,ents had been athered by and ta-en into the custody of the PC:: in the course of
the Co,,ission#s investiation of the alleed ill$otten wealth of the "arcoses% &owever, iven the
purposes for which these docu,ents were sub,itted, "ano was not a credible witness who could
testify as to their contents% )o reiterate, @JiKf the writins have subscribin witnesses to the,, they ,ust
be proved by those witnesses%@ Fitnesses can testify only to those facts which are of their personal
-nowlede0 that is, those derived fro, their own perception% .C )hus, "ano could only testify as to
how she obtained custody of these docu,ents, but not as to the contents of the docu,ents the,selves%
)a(S&C
Neither did petitioner present as witnesses the affiants of these 1ffidavits or "e,oranda sub,itted to
the court% Basic is the rule that, while affidavits ,ay be considered as public docu,ents if they are
ac-nowleded before a notary public, these 1ffidavits are still classified as hearsay evidence% )he
reason for this rule is that they are not enerally prepared by the affiant, but by another one who uses
his or her own lanuae in writin the affiant#s state,ents, parts of which ,ay thus be either o,itted or
,isunderstood by the one writin the,% "oreover, the adverse party is deprived of the opportunity to
cross$e3a,ine the affiants% 6or this reason, affidavits are enerally re<ected for bein hearsay, unless
the affiants the,selves are placed on the witness stand to testify thereon% .8
1s to the copy of the )SN of the proceedins before the PC::, while it ,ay be considered as a public
docu,ent since it was ta-en in the course of the PC::#s e3ercise of its ,andate, it was not attested to
by the leal custodian to be a correct copy of the oriinal% )his o,ission falls short of the re2uire,ent
of Rule !.*, Secs% *A and *C of the Rules of Court% .=
'n su,,ary, we adopt the rulin of the Sandianbayan, to wit: c&(aE'
6urther, aain contrary to the theory of the plaintiff, the presentation of the oriinals of the aforesaid
e3hibits is not validly e3cepted under Rule !.+, Section . 4a5, 4b5, and 4d5 of the Rules of Court% Dnder
pararaph 4d5, when #the oriinal docu,ent is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is
recorded in a public office,# presentation of the oriinal thereof is e3cepted% &owever, as earlier
observed, all e3cept one of the e3hibits introduced by the plaintiff were not necessarily public
docu,ents% )he transcript of stenoraphic notes 4)SN5 of the proceedins purportedly before the
PC::, the plaintiff#s e3hibit @G@, ,ay be a public docu,ent, but what was presented by the plaintiff
was a ,ere photocopy of the purported )SN% )he Rules provide that when the oriinal docu,ent is in
the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents ,ay be proved by a certified
copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof% E3hibit @G@ was not a certified copy and it was not
even sined by the stenorapher who supposedly too- down the proceedins%
)he rest of the above$,entioned e3hibits cannot li-ewise be e3cepted under pararaphs 4a5 and 4b5 of
Section .% Section C of the sa,e Rule provides that #when the oriinal docu,ents has been lost or
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its e3ecution or e3istence and the
cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, ,ay prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital
of its contents in so,e authentic docu,ent, or by the testi,ony of witnesses in the order stated%# )hus,
in order that secondary evidence ,ay be ad,issible, there ,ust be proof by satisfactory evidence of 4!5
due e3ecution of the oriinal0 4*5 loss, destruction or unavailability of all such oriinals and 4.5
reasonable dilience and ood faith in the search for or atte,pt to produce the oriinal% None of these
re2uire,ents were co,plied with by the plaintiff% Si,ilar to e3hibit #G#, e3hibits #P#, #R#, #S#, and #)#
were all photocopies% #P#, #R#, and #)# were affidavits of persons who did not testify before the Court%
E3hibit #S# is a letter which is clearly a private docu,ent% Not only does it not fall within the e3ceptions
of Section ., it is also a ,ere photocopy% 1s Fe previously e,phasi9ed, even if oriinals of these
affidavits were presented, they would still be considered hearsay evidence if the affiants do not testify
and identify the,% .7 )a&'(S
)hus, absent any convincin evidence to hold otherwise, it follows that petitioner failed to prove that
the "arcos siblins and :reorio 1raneta ''' collaborated with for,er President "arcos and ',elda R%
"arcos and participated in the first couple#s alleed accu,ulation of ill$otten wealth insofar as the
specific alleations herein were concerned%
)he "arcos siblins are co,pulsory heirs%
)o reiterate, in its third 1,ended Co,plaint, petitioner prays that the "arcos respondents be ,ade to
4!5 pay for the value of the alleed ill$otten wealth with interest fro, the date of ac2uisition0 4*5
render a co,plete accountin and inventory of all funds and other pieces of property leally or
beneficially held and;or controlled by the,, as well as their leal and beneficial interest therein0 4.5 pay
actual da,aes esti,ated at P*++ billion and additional actual da,aes to rei,burse e3penses for the
recovery of the alleed ill$otten wealth esti,ated at P*C+ ,illion or in such a,ount as ,ay be proven
durin trial0 4A5 pay ,oral da,aes a,ountin to PC+ billion0 4C5 pay te,perate and no,inal da,aes,
as well as attorney#s fees and litiation e3penses in an a,ount to be proven durin the trial0 485 pay
e3e,plary da,aes in the a,ount of P! billion0 and 4=5 pay treble <udicial costs% ./ cC1'ES
't ,ust be stressed that we are faced with e3ceptional circu,stances, iven the nature and the e3tent of
the properties involved in the case pendin with the Sandianbayan% 't bears e,phasis that the
Co,plaint is one for the reversion, the reconveyance, the restitution and the accountin of alleed ill$
otten wealth and the pay,ent of da,aes% Based on the alleations of the Co,plaint, the court is
chared with the tas- of 4!5 deter,inin the properties in the "arcos estate that constitute the alleed
ill$otten wealth0 4*5 tracin where these properties are0 4.5 issuin the appropriate orders for the
accountin, the recovery, and the pay,ent of these properties0 and, finally, 4A5 deter,inin if the award
of da,aes is proper%
Since the pendin case before the Sandianbayan survives the death of 6erdinand E% "arcos, it is
i,perative therefore that the estate be duly represented% )he purpose behind this rule is the protection
of the riht to due process of every party to a litiation who ,ay be affected by the intervenin death%
)he deceased litiant is hi,self protected, as he continues to be properly represented in the suit throuh
the duly appointed leal representative of his estate% A+ On that note, we ta-e <udicial notice of the
probate proceedins reardin the will of 6erdinand E% "arcos% 'n Republic of the Philippines v%
"arcos '', A! we upheld the rant by the Reional )rial Court 4R)C5 of letters testa,entary in solidu,
to 6erdinand R% "arcos, Jr% and ',elda Ro,ualde9$"arcos as e3ecutors of the last will and testa,ent
of the late 6erdinand E% "arcos%
Dnless the e3ecutors of the "arcos estate or the heirs are ready to waive in favor of the state their riht
to defend or protect the estate or those properties found to be ill$otten in their possession, control or
ownership, then they ,ay not be dropped as defendants in the civil case pendin before the
Sandianbayan% c&a1(C
Rule ., Sec% = of the Rules of Court defines indispensable parties as those parties$in$interest without
who, there can be no final deter,ination of an action% )hey are those parties who possess such an
interest in the controversy that a final decree would necessarily affect their rihts, so that the courts
cannot proceed without their presence% Parties are indispensable if their interest in the sub<ect ,atter of
the suit and in the relief souht is ine3tricably intertwined with that of the other parties% A*
'n order to reach a final deter,ination of the ,atters concernin the estate of 6erdinand E% "arcos B
that is, the accountin and the recovery of ill$otten wealth B the present case ,ust be ,aintained
aainst ',elda "arcos and herein respondent 6erdinand @Bonbon@ R% "arcos, Jr%, as e3ecutors of the
"arcos estate pursuant to Sec% ! of Rule 7= of the Rules of Court% 1ccordin to this provision, actions
,ay be co,,enced to recover fro, the estate, real or personal property, or an interest therein, or to
enforce a lien thereon0 and actions to recover da,aes for an in<ury to person or property, real or
personal, ,ay be co,,enced aainst the e3ecutors%
Fe also hold that the action ,ust li-ewise be ,aintained aainst ',ee "arcos$"anotoc and 'rene
"arcos$1raneta on the basis of the non$e3haustive list attached as 1nne3 @1@ to the )hird 1,ended
Co,plaint, which states that the listed properties therein were owned by 6erdinand and ',elda "arcos
and their i,,ediate fa,ily% A. 't is only durin the trial of Civil Case No% +++* before the
Sandianbayan that there could be a deter,ination of whether these properties are indeed ill$otten or
were leiti,ately ac2uired by respondents and their predecessors% )hus, while it was not proven that
respondents conspired in accu,ulatin ill$otten wealth, they ,ay be in possession, ownership or
control of such ill$otten properties or the proceeds thereof as heirs of the "arcos couple% )hus, their
lac- of participation in any illeal act does not re,ove the character of the property as ill$otten and,
therefore, as rihtfully belonin to the State% E1c)(&
Secondly, under the rules of succession, the heirs instantaneously beca,e co$owners of the "arcos
properties upon the death of the President% )he property rihts and obliations to the e3tent of the value
of the inheritance of a person are trans,itted to another throuh the decedent#s death% AA 'n this
concept, nothin prevents the heirs fro, e3ercisin their riht to transfer or dispose of the properties
that constitute their leiti,es, even absent their declaration or absent the partition or the distribution of
the estate% 'n Ja-osale, v% Rafols, AC we said:
1rticle AA+ of the Civil Code provides that @the possession of hereditary property is dee,ed to be
trans,itted to the heir without interruption fro, the instant of the death of the decedent, in case the
inheritance be accepted%@ 1nd "anresa with reason states that upon the death of a person, each of his
heirs @beco,es the undivided owner of the whole estate left with respect to the part or portion which
,iht be ad<udicated to hi,, a co,,unity of ownership bein thus for,ed a,on the coowners of the
estate while it re,ains undivided%@ 4. "anresa, .C=0 1lcala vs% 1lcala, .C Phil% 8=/%5 1nd accordin to
article .// of the Civil Code, every part owner ,ay assin or ,ortae his part in the co,,on
property, and the effect of such assin,ent or ,ortae shall be li,ited to the portion which ,ay be
allotted hi, in the partition upon the dissolution of the co,,unity% &ence, in the case of Ra,ire9 vs%
Bautista, !A Phil% C*7, where so,e of the heirs, without the concurrence of the others, sold a property
left by their deceased father, this Court, spea-in thru its then Chief Justice Cayetano 1rellano, said
that the sale was valid, but that the effect thereof was li,ited to the share which ,ay be allotted to the
vendors upon the partition of the estate% 4E,phasis supplied5 E1SC(&
Eastly, petitioner#s prayer in its )hird 1,ended Co,plaint directly refers to herein respondents, to wit:
!% 1S )O )&E 6'RS) SECON( 1N( )&'R( C1DSES O6 1C)'ON B )o return and reconvey
to Plaintiff all funds and other property ac2uired by (efendants durin their incu,bency as public
officers, which funds and other property are ,anifestly out of proportion to their salaries, other lawful
inco,e and inco,e fro, leiti,ately ac2uired property which (efendants have failed to establish as
havin been, in fact, lawfully ac2uired by the,, alternatively, to solidarily pay Plaintiff the value
thereof with interest thereon fro, the date of ac2uisition until full pay,ent%
*% 1S )O )&E 6ODR)& C1DSE O6 1C)'ON B to individually render to this &onorable Court
a co,plete accountin and inventory, sub<ect to evaluation of Court$appointed assessors, of all funds
and other property leally or beneficially held and;or controlled by the,, as well as their leal and
beneficial interest in such funds and other property% 4E,phasis supplied5
'n su,, the "arcos siblins are ,aintained as respondents, because 4!5 the action pendin before the
Sandianbayan is one that survives death, and, therefore, the rihts to the estate ,ust be duly protected0
4*5 they alleedly control, possess or own ill$otten wealth, thouh their direct involve,ent in
accu,ulatin or ac2uirin such wealth ,ay not have been proven% ca'E)S
>eun Chun ?a,, >eun Chun
&o and >eun Chun 6an
't is worthy to note that respondents draw our attention to 1,erican 'nter$6ashion Corporation v%
Office of the President A8 in which they contend that this Court considered the alleation of dollar
saltin as baseless% )he cited case, however, finds no application herein as the for,er ,erely ruled that
:lorious Sun was denied due process when it was not furnished by the :ar,ents and )e3tile E3port
Board 4:)EB5 any basis for the cancellation of the e3port 2uota because of alleations of dollar
saltin% )hat (ecision did not prevent petitioner fro, adducin evidence to support its alleation in
Civil Case No% +++* before the Sandianbayan under a different cause of action%
Nevertheless, the alleations aainst >eun Chun ?a,, >eun Chun &o and >eun Chun 6an in the
case at bar were also proved to be baseless% 1ain, petitioner failed to illustrate how respondents herein
acted as du,,ies of the "arcoses in ac2uirin ill$otten wealth% )his Court notes that the Co,plaint
aainst the >euns allees that the "arcoses used :lorious Sun B the ar,ent co,pany in which the
>euns are controllin stoc-holders B for illeal dollar saltin throuh the co,pany#s i,portation of
deni, fabrics fro, only one supplier at prices ,uch hiher than those bein paid by other users of
si,ilar ,aterials% Notably, no ,ention of (e Soleil 1pparel was ,ade% a(c&'C
)o prove its alleations, petitioner sub,itted the controverted E3hibits @P,@ @G,@ @R,@ @S,@ and @)%@ 1s
earlier discussed in detail, these pieces of evidence were ,ere photocopies of the oriinals and were
unauthenticated by the persons who e3ecuted the,0 thus, they have no probative value% Even the
alleations of petitioner itself in its Petition for Review are bereft of any factual basis for holdin that
these docu,ents undoubtedly show respondents# participation in the alleed dollar saltin% )he
pertinent portion of the Petition reads:
)o illustrate, the 1ffidavit dated "ay */, !/7= e3ecuted by "r% Ra,on "on9on which was sub,itted
as E3hibit P, showed that respondent ',ee "arcos$"anotoc owns and controls 'BC$!., BBC$* and
4R5PN$/, and has interest in the (e Soleil 1pparel% )he testi,ony of "r% Ra,on "on9on durin the
hearin on June 7, !/7= before the Presidential Co,,ission on :ood :overn,ent as shown in the
)ranscript of Stenoraphic Notes also affir,ed his declarations in the 1ffidavit dated "ay */, !/7=%
)he )ranscript of Stenoraphic Notes dated June 7, !/7= was presented as E3hibit G% "oreover, the
1ffidavit dated "arch *!, !/78 of >eun ?wo- >in which was presented as E3hibit R disclosed that
',ee "arcos$"anotoc is the owner of 8=L e2uity of (e Soleil 1pparel% )he letter dated July !=, !/7A
sined by seven 4=5 incorporators of (e Soleil 1pparel, addressed to &on-on investors which was
presented as E3hibit S confir,ed that the sinatories hold or own 8=L e2uity of the corporation in
behalf of the beneficial owners previously disclosed to the addressees% 'n addition to the foreoin
docu,ents, petitioner presented the 1ffidavit of Rodolfo H% Puno, Chair,an of the :ar,ents and
)e3tile E3port :roup 4:)EB5 as E3hibit ) wherein he cateorically declared that the ,a<ority of (e
Soleil 1pparel was actually owned by respondent ',ee "arcos$"anotoc% A= Ca(S&E
)he foreoin 2uotation fro, the Petition is bereft of any factual ,atter that warrants a consideration
by the Court% Straiht fro, the horse#s ,outh, these docu,ents are only ,eant to show the ownership
and interest of ',ee "arcos "anotoc in (e Soleil B and not how respondent supposedly participated
in dollar saltin or in the accu,ulation of ill$otten wealth%
PE1$P):FO
)he PE1$P):FO (e,urrer to Evidence was ranted pri,arily as a conse2uence of the prosecution#s
failure to establish that the assets of Pantranco were ill$otten, as discussed earlier% )hus, we find no
error in the assailed Order of the Sandianbayan%
1 6inal Note
1s earlier adverted to, the best evidence rule has been reconi9ed as an evidentiary standard since the
!7th century% 6or three centuries, it has been practiced as one of the ,ost basic rules in law% 't is
difficult to conceive that one could have finished law school and passed the bar e3a,inations without
-nowin such ele,entary rule% )hus, it is deeply disturbin that the PC:: and the Office of the
Solicitor :eneral 4OS:5 B the very aencies sworn to protect the interest of the state and its people B
could conduct their prosecution in the ,anner that they did% )o e,phasi9e, the PC:: is a hihly
speciali9ed office focused on the recovery of ill$otten wealth, while the OS: is the principal leal
defender of the overn,ent% )he lawyers of these overn,ent aencies are e3pected to be the best in
the leal profession% ')Ec1(
&owever, despite havin the e3pansive resources of overn,ent, the ,e,bers of the prosecution did
not even bother to provide any reason whatsoever for their failure to present the oriinal docu,ents or
the witnesses to support the overn,ent#s clai,s% Even worse was presentin in evidence a photocopy
of the )SN of the PC:: proceedins instead of the oriinal, or a certified true copy of the oriinal,
which the prosecutors the,selves should have had in their custody% Such ,anner of leal practice
deserves the reproof of this Court% Fe are constrained to call attention to this apparently serious failure
to follow a ,ost basic rule in law, iven the special circu,stances surroundin this case%
)he public prosecutors should e,ploy and use all overn,ent resources and powers efficiently,
effectively, honestly and econo,ically, particularly to avoid wastae of public funds and revenues%
)hey should perfor, and dischare their duties with the hihest deree of e3cellence, professionalis,,
intellience and s-ill% A7
)he basic ideal of the leal profession is to render service and secure <ustice for those see-in its aid%
A/ 'n order to do this, lawyers are re2uired to observe and adhere to the hihest ethical and professional
standards% )he leal profession is so i,bued with public interest that its practitioners are accountable
not only to their clients, but to the public as well% aC)&(1
)he public prosecutors, aside fro, bein representatives of the overn,ent and the state, are, first and
fore,ost, officers of the court% )hey too- the oath to e3ert every effort and to consider it their duty to
assist in the speedy and efficient ad,inistration of <ustice% C+ Eawyers owe fidelity to the cause of the
client and should be ,indful of the trust and confidence reposed in the,% C! &ence, should serve with
co,petence and dilience% C*
Fe note that there are instances when this Court ,ay overturn the dis,issal of the lower courts in
instances when it is shown that the prosecution has deprived the parties their due process of law% 'n
"erciales v% Court of 1ppeals, C. we reversed the (ecision of the R)C in dis,issin the cri,inal case
for rape with ho,icide% 'n that case, it was very apparent that the public prosecutor violated the due
process rihts of the private co,plainant owin to its blatant disreard of procedural rules and the
failure to present available crucial evidence, which would tend to prove the uilt or innocence of the
accused therein% "oreover, we li-ewise found that the trial court was ravely re,iss in its duty to ferret
out the truth and, instead, <ust @passively watched as the public prosecutor bunled the case%@
&owever, it ,ust be e,phasi9ed that "erciales was filed e3actly to deter,ine whether the prosecution
and the trial court ravely abused their discretion in the proceedins of the case, thus resultin in the
denial of the offended party#s due process% "eanwhile, the present case ,erely allees that there was an
error in the Sandianbayan#s consideration of the probative value of evidence% Fe also note that in
"erciales, both the prosecution and the trial court were found to be e2ually uilty of serious
nonfeasance, which pro,pted us to re,and the case to the trial court for further proceedins and
reception of evidence% "erciales is thus inapplicable to the case at bar% cdrep
Nevertheless, iven the particular conte3t of this case, the failure of the prosecution to adhere to
so,ethin as basic as the best evidence rule raises serious doubts on the level and 2uality of effort
iven to the overn,ent#s cause% )hus, we hihly encourae the Office of the President, the OS:, and
the PC:: to conduct the appropriate investiation and conse2uent action on this ,atter%
F&ERE6ORE, in view of the foreoin, the Petition is P1R)'1EE> :R1N)E(% )he assailed
Sandianbayan Resolution dated 8 (ece,ber *++C is 166'R"E( with "O('6'C1)'ON% 6or the
reasons stated herein, respondents ',elda "arcos$"anotoc, 'rene "arcos$1raneta, and 6erdinand R%
"arcos, Jr% shall be ,aintained as defendants in Civil Case No% +++* pendin before the
Sandianbayan%
Eet a copy of this (ecision be furnished to the Office of the President so that it ,ay loo- into the
circu,stances of this case and deter,ine the liability, if any, of the lawyers of the Office of the
Solicitor :eneral and the Presidential Co,,ission on :ood :overn,ent in the ,anner by which this
case was handled in the Sandianbayan% aS)cCE
SO OR(ERE(%
Brion, M Hillara,a, Jr%, MM Pere9 and Reyes, JJ%, concur%
6ootnotes
M 'n lieu of 1ssociate Justice 1ntonio )% Carpio who inhibited fro, the case%
MM 1dditional ,e,ber in lieu of 1ssociate Justice 1ntonio )% Carpio per Raffle dated .+ January
*+!*%
!% Penned by 1ssociate Justice :reory S% On, with 1ssociate Justices Jose R% &ernande9 and
Rodolfo 1% Ponferrada, concurrin0 rollo, pp% !!/$*A8%
*% Rollo, pp% =A*$==7%
.% 'd% at =8.$=8C%
A% Presidential (ecree No% !77., Sec% * defines @saltin of forein e3chane@ as when any person
enaed in the business of e3portin underdeclares or undervalues his e3ports, either as to price or
2uantity, or any person enaed in the business of i,portation overvalues or overdeclares his
i,portations, either as to price or 2uantity, for the purpose of saltin and retainin forein e3chane
abroad in violation of e3istin laws and Central Ban- rules and reulations%
C% Rollo, pp% =8C$==!%
8% Rollo, pp% =/8$7++%
=% 'd% at !!/$*.8%
7% 1ffidavit of Ra,on S% "on9on%
/% )SN ta-en durin the hearin held before the PC:: on the 8th 6loor, Philco,cen Buildin,
Ortias 1venue, Pasi, "etro "anila, on 7 June !/7=%
!+% 1ffidavit of >eun ?wo- >in%
!!% Eetter of Paulino Petralba to >eun Chun ?a,, >eun Chun &o, and 1rcie Chan%
!*% 1ffidavit of Rodolfo H% Puno%
!.% "a3 B% Potenciano, "a3 Joseph 1% Potenciano, and (olores 1% Potenciano were owners of
Batanas Eauna )ayabas Bus Co,pany 4BE)BCo%5% 'n line with the overn,ent#s privati9ation
prora,, the assets of Pantranco were sold to the BE)BCo% in !/7C% )he Potencianos thereafter
incorporated Pantranco as a private corporation%
!A% Rollo, pp% *.=$*A8%
!C% 'd% at CC$C=%
!8% 1ttached as 1nne3 @1@ to the Co,plaint is a list of assets and other properties purported to be
owned by 6erdinand E% "arcos, ',elda R% "arcos, and their i,,ediate fa,ily%
!=% 4*5 )he President and the Hice$President shall not, durin their tenure, hold any other office,
e3cept when otherwise provided in this Constitution, nor ,ay they practice any profession, participate
directly or indirectly in any business, or be financially interested directly or indirectly in any contract
with, or in any franchise or special privilee ranted by the :overn,ent or any subdivision, aency, or
instru,entality thereof, includin overn,ent$owned or controlled corporation%
!7% Rollo, pp% .!7$.*C%
!/% 'd% at .C+$ACC%
*+% 'd% at *A=$*CC%
*!% 'd% at .!.%
**% 'd% at .!8$.!=%
*.% 'd% at *C8$.!*%
*A% 'd% at AC8$A=.%
*C% 'd% at A=C$A=/%
*8% 'd% at A7+$A/.%
*=% 'd% at A/A%
*7% 'd% at A/=$C+.%
*/% 'd% at C+A$C+=%
.+% 'd% at C!*$C!C%
.!% 'd% at C!8$C!/%
.*% 'd% at C*8$C*7%
..% 'd% at 8C%
.A% *8 E%R% !C 4!=AC5%
.C% Rules of Court, Rule !.+, Sec% .8%
.8% People#s Ban- and )rust Co,pany v% Eeonidas, :%R% No% A=7!C, !! "arch !//*, *+= SCR1
!8A%
.=% SEC)'ON *A% Proof of official record% B )he record of public docu,ents referred to in
pararaph 4a5 of Section !/, when ad,issible for any purpose, ,ay be evidenced by an official
publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer havin the leal custody of the record, or by his
deputy, and acco,panied, if the record is not -ept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer
has the custody% 'f the office in which the record is -ept is in a forein country, the certificate ,ay be
,ade by a secretary of the e,bassy or leation, consul eneral, consul, vice consul, or consular aent
or by any officer in the forein service of the Philippines stationed in the forein country in which the
record is -ept, and authenticated by the seal of his office%
SEC)'ON *C% Fhat attestation of copy ,ust state% B Fhenever a copy of a docu,ent or
record is attested for the purpose of evidence, the attestation ,ust state, in substance, that the copy is a
correct copy of the oriinal, or a specific part thereof, as the case ,ay be% )he attestation ,ust be under
the official seal of the attestin officer, if there be any, or if he be the cler- of a court havin a seal,
under the seal of such court%
.7% Rollo, pp% **!$***%
./% 'd% at ==!$==.%
A+% Su,al<a v% Spouses Eiterato, :%R% No% !A/=7=, !7 June *++7, CCC SCR1 C.%
A!% :%R% Nos% !.+.=! N!.+7CC, A 1uust *++/, C/C SCR1 A.%
A*% "acababbad, Jr% v% "asira, :%R% No% !8!*.=, !A January *++/, C=8 SCR1 =+%
A.% Rollo, pp% ==8$==7%
AA% Civil Code, 1rt% ==A%
AC% =. Phil% 8*7 4!/A*5%
A8% *=A Phil% 8/! 4!//!5%
A=% 'd% at C7$C/%
A7% R%1% 8=!., Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and E,ployees, Sec% A
4a5 and 4b5%
A/% "ayer v% State Bar, * Cal%*d, =!%
C+% Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon !*%
C!% 'd%, Canon !=%
C*% 'd%, Canon !7%
C.% A*/ Phil% =+ 4*++*5%