G. R. No.

171701 February 8, 2012

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Petitioner,
vs.
M. IMEL! "IMEE" R. MRCOS#MNOTOC, FER!INN! "BONGBONG" R.
MRCOS, $R., GREGORIO M. RNET III, IRENE R. MRCOS#RNET,
%EUNG CHUN FN, %EUNG CHUN HO, %EUNG CHUN &M, a'( PNTRNCO
EMPLO%EES SSOCITION )PE*#PTG+O, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
SERENO, J.:
Before this Court is a Petition for Review filed by the Republi of the Philippines assailin! the
Resolutions
"
issued by the Sandi!anbayan in onnetion with an alle!ed portion of the #aroses$
supposed ill%!otten wealth.
&his ase involves P'(( billion of the #aroses$ alle!ed au)ulated ill%!otten wealth. It also
inludes the alle!ed use of the )edia networ*s IBC%"+, BBC%' and RPN%, for the #aros
fa)ily$s personal benefit- the alle!ed use of De Soleil .pparel for dollar saltin!- and the alle!ed
ille!al a/uisition and operation of the bus o)pany Pantrano North E0press, In. 1Pantrano2.
T,e Fa-./
.fter the EDS. People Power Revolution in ",34, the first e0eutive at of then President
Cora5on C. ./uino was to reate the Presidential Co))ission on 6ood 6overn)ent 1PC662.
Pursuant to E0eutive Order No. ", the PC66 was !iven the followin! )andate7
Se. '. &he Co))ission shall be har!ed with the tas* of assistin! the President in re!ard to the
followin! )atters7
1a2 &he reovery of all ill%!otten wealth au)ulated by for)er President 8erdinand E.
#aros, his i))ediate fa)ily, relatives, subordinates and lose assoiates, whether
loated in the Philippines or abroad, inludin! the ta*eover or se/uestration of all
business enterprises and entities owned or ontrolled by the), durin! his ad)inistration,
diretly or throu!h no)inees, by ta*in! undue advanta!e of their publi offie and9or
usin! their powers, authority, influene, onnetions or relationship.
1b2 &he investi!ation of suh ases of !raft and orruption as the President )ay assi!n to
the Co))ission fro) ti)e to ti)e.
12 &he adoption of safe!uards to ensure that the above praties shall not be repeated in
any )anner under the new !overn)ent, and the institution of ade/uate )easures to
prevent the ourrene of orruption.
Se. +. &he Co))ission shall have the power and authority7
1a2 &o ondut investi!ation as )ay be neessary in order to ao)plish and arry out the
purposes of this order.
1b2 &o se/uester or plae or ause to be plaed under its ontrol or possession any
buildin! or offie wherein any ill%!otten wealth or properties )ay be found, and any
reords pertainin! thereto, in order to prevent their destrution, oneal)ent or
disappearane whih would frustrate or ha)per the investi!ation or otherwise prevent the
Co))ission fro) ao)plishin! its tas*.
12 &o provisionally ta*e over in the publi interest or to prevent its disposal or
dissipation, business enterprises and properties ta*en over by the !overn)ent of the
#aros .d)inistration or by entities or persons lose to for)er President #aros, until
the transations leadin! to suh a/uisition by the latter an be disposed of by the
appropriate authorities.
1d2 &o en:oin or restrain any atual or threatened o))ission of fats by any person or
entity that )ay render )oot and aade)i, or frustrate, or otherwise )a*e ineffetual the
efforts of the Co))ission to arry out its tas*s under this order.
1e2 &o ad)inister oaths, and issue subpoena re/uirin! the attendane and testi)ony of
witnesses and9or the prodution of suh boo*s, papers, ontrats, reords, state)ent of
aounts and other dou)ents as )ay be )aterial to the investi!ation onduted by the
Co))ission.
1f2 &o hold any person in diret or indiret onte)pt and i)pose the appropriate penalties,
followin! the sa)e proedures and penalties provided in the Rules of Court.
1!2 &o see* and seure the assistane of any offie, a!eny or instru)entality of the
!overn)ent.
1h2 &o pro)ul!ate suh rules and re!ulations as )ay be neessary to arry out the
purpose of this order.
&hus, nu)erous ivil and ri)inal ases were subse/uently filed. One of the ivil ases filed
before the Sandi!anbayan to reover the #aroses$ alle!ed ill%!otten wealth was Civil Case No.
(((', now sub:et of this Petition.
On "4 ;uly ",3<, the PC66, atin! on behalf of the Republi and assisted by the Offie of the
Soliitor 6eneral 1OS62, filed a Co)plaint for Reversion, Reonveyane, Restitution,
.ountin! and Da)a!es a!ainst 8erdinand E. #aros, who was later substituted by his estate
upon his death- I)elda R. #aros- and herein respondents I)ee #aros%#anoto, Irene #aros%
.raneta, Bon!bon! #aros, &o)as #anoto, and 6re!orio .raneta III.
On " Otober ",3<, the PC66 filed an a)ended Co)plaint to add Constante Rubio as
defendant.
.!ain on , 8ebruary ",33, it a)ended the Co)plaint, this ti)e to inlude as defendants
Ne)esio 6. Co and herein respondents =eun! Chun >a), =eun! Chun ?o, and =eun! Chun
8an.
8or the third ti)e, on '+ .pril ",,(, the PC66 a)ended its Co)plaint, addin! to its !rowin! list
of defendants I)elda Co:uan!o, the estate of Ra)on Co:uan!o, and Pri)e ?oldin!s, In.
'
&he PC66 filed a fourth a)ended Co)plaint, whih was later denied by the Sandi!anbayan in
its Resolution dated ' Septe)ber ",,3.
&he alle!ations ontained in the Co)plaint speifi to herein respondents are the followin!7
+
',. Defendants I)elda 1I#EE2 R. #aros%#anoto, &o)as #anoto, Irene R. #anoto 1si2
.raneta, 6re!orio #a. .raneta III, and 8erdinand R. #aros, ;r., atively ollaborated, with
Defendants 8erdinand E. #aros and I)elda R. #aros a)on! others, in onfisatin! and9or
unlawfully appropriatin! funds and other property, and in onealin! the sa)e as desribed
above. In addition, eah of the said Defendants, either by ta*in! undue advanta!e of their
relationship with Defendants 8erdinand E. #aros and I)elda R. #aros, or by reason of the
above%desribed ative ollaboration, unlawfully a/uired or reeived property, shares of sto*s
in orporations, ille!al pay)ents suh as o))issions, bribes or *i*ba*s, and other for)s of
i)proper privile!es, ino)e, revenues and benefits. Defendant .raneta in partiular )ade use of
.sialand Develop)ent Corporation whih is inluded in .nne0 @.@ hereof as orporate vehile
to benefit in the )anner stated above.
+". Defendants Ne)esio 6. Co, =eun! Chun >a), =eun! Chun ?o and =eun! Chun 8an are the
ontrollin! sto*holders of 6lorious Sun 8ashion #anufaturin! Corporation 1Phils.2. &hrou!h
6lorious Sun 1Phils.2, they ated as fronts or du))ies, ronies or otherwise willin! tools of
spouses 8erdinand and I)elda #aros and9or the fa)ily, partiularly of Defendant I)elda
1I)ee2 #aros%#anoto, in the ille!al saltin! of forei!n e0han!e
A
by i)portin! deni) fabris
fro) only one supplier B a ?on! >on! based orporation whih was also owned and ontrolled
by defendant ?on! >on! investors, at pries )uh hi!her than those bein! paid by other users of
si)ilar )aterials to the !rave and irreparable da)a!e of Plaintiff.
&hus, petitioner set forth the followin! auses of ation in its Co)plaint7
C
+'. 8irst Cause of .tion7 BRE.C? O8 PDBEIC &RDS& B . publi offie is a publi trust. By
o))ittin! all the ats desribed above, Defendants repeatedly breahed publi trust and the
law, )a*in! the) liable solidarily to Plaintiff. &he funds and other property a/uired by
Defendants followin!, or as a result of, their breah of publi trust, so)e of whih are )entioned
or desribed above, esti)ated to a)ount to P '(( billion are dee)ed to have been a/uired for
the benefit of Plaintiff and are, therefore, i)pressed with onstrutive trust in favor of Plaintiff
and the 8ilipino people. Conse/uently, Defendants are solidarily liable to restore or reonvey to
Plaintiff all suh funds and property thus i)pressed with onstrutive trust for the benefit of
Plaintiff and the 8ilipino people.
++. Seond Cause of .tion7 .BDSE O8 RI6?& .ND POFER B
1a2 Defendants, in perpetratin! the unlawful ats desribed above, o))itted abuse of
ri!ht and power whih aused untold )isery, sufferin!s and da)a!es to Plaintiff.
Defendants violated, a)on! others .rtiles ",, '(, and '" of the Civil Code of the
Philippines-
1b2 .s a result of the fore!oin! ats, Defendants a/uired the title to the benefiial
interest in funds and other property and onealed suh title, funds and interest throu!h
the use of relatives, business assoiates, no)inees, a!ents, or du))ies. Defendants are,
therefore, solidarily liable to Plaintiff to return and reonvey all suh funds and other
property unlawfully a/uired by the) esti)ated at &FO ?DNDRED BIEEION PESOS,
or alternatively, to pay Plaintiff, solidarily, by way of inde)nity, the da)a!e aused to
Plaintiff e/uivalent to the a)ount of suh funds or the value of other property not
returned or restored to Plaintiff, plus interest thereon fro) the date of unlawful
a/uisition until full pay)ent thereof.
+A. &hird Cause of .tion7 DN;DS& ENRIC?#EN& B
Defendants ille!ally au)ulated funds and other property whose esti)ated value is P '((
billion in violation of the laws of the Philippines and in breah of their offiial funtions and
fiduiary obli!ations. Defendants, therefore, have un:ustly enrihed the)selves to the !rave and
irreparable da)a!e and pre:udie of Plaintiff. Defendants have an obli!ation at law,
independently of breah of trust and abuse of ri!ht and power, and as an alternative, to solidarily
return to Plaintiff suh funds and other property with whih Defendants, in !ross evident bad
faith, have un:ustly enrihed the)selves or, in default thereof, restore to Plaintiff the a)ount of
suh funds and the value of the other property inludin! those whih )ay have been wasted,
and9or lost esti)ated at P '(( billion with interest thereon fro) the date of unlawful a/uisition
until full pay)ent thereof.
+C. 8ourth Cause of .tion7 .CCODN&IN6 B
&he Co))ission, atin! pursuant to the provisions of the appliable law, believe that
Defendants, atin! sin!ly or olletively, in unlawful onert with one another, and with the
ative ollaboration of third persons, sub:et of separate suits, a/uired funds, assets and
property durin! the inu)beny of Defendant publi offiers, )anifestly out of proportion to
their salaries, to their other lawful ino)e and ino)e fro) le!iti)ately a/uired property.
Conse/uently, they are re/uired to show to the satisfation of this ?onorable Court that they
have lawfully a/uired all suh funds, assets and property whih are in e0ess of their le!al net
ino)e, and for this ?onorable Court to deree that the Defendants are under obli!ation to
aount to Plaintiff with respet to all le!al or benefiial interests in funds, properties and assets
of whatever *ind and wherever loated in e0ess of the lawful earnin!s or lawful ino)e fro)
le!iti)ately a/uired property.
+4. 8ifth Cause of .tion B EI.BIEI&= 8OR D.#.6ES B
1a2 By reason of the unlawful ats set forth above, Plaintiff and the 8ilipino people have
suffered atual da)a!es in an a)ount representin! the peuniary loss sustained by the
latter as a result of the Defendants$ unlawful ats, the appro0i)ate value and interest of
whih, fro) the ti)e of their wron!ful a/uisition, are esti)ated at P '(( billion plus
e0penses whih Plaintiff has been o)pelled to inur and shall ontinue to inur in its
effort to reover Defendants$ ill%!otten wealth all over the world, whih e0penses are
reasonably esti)ated at P 'C( )illion. Defendants are, therefore, :ointly and severally
liable to Plaintiff for atual da)a!es in an a)ount reasonably esti)ated at P '(( Billion
Pesos and to rei)burse e0penses for reovery of Defendants$ ill%!otten wealth esti)ated
to ost P 'C( )illion or in suh a)ount as are proven durin! the trial.
1b2 .s a result of Defendants$ ats desribed above, Plaintiff and the 8ilipino people had
painfully endured and suffered )oral da)a!es for )ore than twenty lon! years, an!uish,
fri!ht, sleepless ni!hts, serious an0iety, wounded feelin!s and )oral sho* as well as
bes)irhed reputation and soial hu)iliation before the international o))unity.
12 In addition, Plaintiff and the 8ilipino people are entitled to te)perate da)a!es for
their sufferin!s whih, by their very nature are inapable of peuniary esti)ation, but
whih this ?onorable Court )ay deter)ine in the e0erise of its sound disretion.
1d2 Defendants, by reason of the above desribed unlawful ats, have violated and
invaded the inalienable ri!ht of Plaintiff and the 8ilipino people to a fair and deent way
of life befittin! a Nation with rih natural and hu)an resoures. &his basi and
funda)ental ri!ht of Plaintiff and the 8ilipino people should be reo!ni5ed and
vindiated by awardin! no)inal da)a!es in an a)ount to be deter)ined by the
?onorable Court in the e0erise of its sound disretion.
1e2 By way of e0a)ple and orretion for the publi !ood and in order to ensure that
Defendants$ unlawful, )aliious, i))oral and wanton ats are not repeated, said
Defendants are solidarily liable to Plaintiff for e0e)plary da)a!es.
In the )eanti)e, the Pantrano E)ployees .ssoiation%P&6FO 1PE.%P&6FO2, a union of
Pantrano e)ployees, )oved to intervene before the Sandi!anbayan. &he for)er alle!ed that the
trust funds in the aount of Pantrano North E0press, In. 1Pantrano2 a)ountin! to P CC
)illion ri!htfully belon!ed to the Pantrano e)ployees, pursuant to the )oney :ud!)ent the
National Eabor Relations Co))ission 1NERC2 awarded in favor of the e)ployees and a!ainst
Pantrano. &hus, PE.%P&6FO ontested the alle!ation of petitioner that the assets of Pantrano
were ill%!otten beause, otherwise, these assets would be returned to the !overn)ent and not to
the e)ployees.
&hereafter, petitioner presented and for)ally offered its evidene a!ainst herein respondents.
?owever, the latter ob:eted to the offer pri)arily on the !round that the dou)ents violated the
best evidene rule of the Rules of Court, as these dou)ents were unauthentiated- )oreover,
petitioner had not provided any reason for its failure to present the ori!inals.
On "" #arh '((', the Sandi!anbayan issued a Resolution
4
ad)ittin! the piees of evidene
while e0pressin! so)e reservation, to wit7
+HEREFORE, ta*in! note of the ob:etions of aused #aroses and the reply thereto by the
plaintiff, all the dou)entary e0hibits for)ally offered by the proseution are hereby ad)itted in
evidene- however, their evidentiary value shall be left to the deter)ination of the Court.
SO OR!ERE!.
I)elda R. #aros- I)ee #aros%#anoto and Bon!bon! #aros, ;r.- Irene #aros%.raneta and
6re!orio #a. .raneta III- =eun! Chun >a), =eun! Chun ?o and =eun! Chun 8an- and the
PE.%P&6FO subse/uently filed their respetive De)urrers to Evidene.
On 4 Dee)ber '((C, the Sandi!anbayan issued the assailed Resolution,
<
whih !ranted all the
De)urrers to Evidene e0ept the one filed by I)elda R. #aros. &he dispositive portion reads7
+HEREFORE, pre)ises onsidered, the De)urrer to Evidene filed by defendant I)elda R.
#aros is hereby !ENIE!. &he De)urrer to Evidene filed by defendants #aria I)elda
#aros #anoto, 8erdinand #aros, ;r., Irene #aros .raneta, 6re!orio #aria .raneta III,
=eun! Chun >a), =eun! Chun 8an, =eun! Chun ?o, and intervenor PE.%P&6FO, are hereby
GRNTE!. &he se/uestration orders on the properties in the na)e of defendant 6re!orio #aria
.raneta III, are aordin!ly ordered lifted.
SO OR!ERE!.
&he Sandi!anbayan denied I)elda R. #aros$ De)urrer pri)arily beause she had ate!orially
ad)itted that she and her husband owned properties enu)erated in the Co)plaint, while statin!
that these properties had been lawfully a/uired. &he ourt held that the evidene presented by
petitioner onstituted a pri)a faie ase a!ainst her, onsiderin! that the value of the properties
involved was !rossly disproportionate to the #aros spouses$ lawful ino)e. &hus, this
ad)ission and the fat that I)elda R. #aros was the o)pulsory heir and ad)inistratri0 of the
#aros estate were the pri)ary reasons why the ourt held that she was responsible for
aountin! for the funds and properties alle!ed to be ill%!otten.
Seondly, the ourt pointed out that Rolando 6apud, whose deposition was ta*en in ?on! >on!,
referred to her as one diretly involved in a)assin! ill%!otten wealth. &he ourt also onsidered
the o)pro)ise a!ree)ent between petitioner and .ntonio O. 8loirendo, who dislosed that he
had perfor)ed several business transations upon the instrutions of the #aros spouses.
Fith re!ard to the siblin!s I)ee #aros%#anoto and Bon!bon! #aros, ;r., the ourt noted
that their involve)ent in the alle!ed ille!al ativities was never established. In fat, they were
never )entioned by any of the witnesses presented. Neither did the dou)entary evidene
pinpoint any speifi involve)ent of the #aros hildren.
#oreover, the ourt held that the evidene, in partiular, e0hibits @P,@
3
@G,@
,
@R,@
"(
@S,@
""
and
@&,@
"'
were onsidered hearsay, beause their ori!inals were not presented in ourt, nor were they
authentiated by the persons who e0euted the). 8urther)ore, the ourt pointed out that
petitioner failed to provide any valid reason why it did not present the ori!inals in ourt. &hese
e0hibits were supposed to show the interests of I)ee #aros%#anoto* in the )edia networ*s
IBC%"+, BBC%' and RPN%,, all three of whih she had alle!edly a/uired ille!ally. &hese
e0hibits also sou!ht to prove her alle!ed partiipation in dollar saltin! throu!h De Soleil
.pparel.
8inally, the ourt held that the relationship of respondents to the #aros spouses was not enou!h
reason to hold the for)er liable.
In the )atter of the spouses Irene #aros and 6re!orio .raneta III, the ourt si)ilarly held that
there was no testi)onial or dou)entary evidene that supported petitioner$s alle!ations a!ainst
the ouple. .!ain, petitioner failed to present the ori!inal dou)ents that supposedly supported
the alle!ations a!ainst the). Instead, it )erely presented photoopies of dou)ents that sou!ht
to prove how the #aroses used the Potenianos
"+
as du))ies in a/uirin! and operatin! the bus
o)pany Pantrano.
#eanwhile, as far as the =eun!s were onerned, the ourt found the alle!ations a!ainst the)
baseless. Petitioner failed to de)onstrate how their business, 6lorious Sun 8ashion 6ar)ents
#anufaturin!, Co. Phils. 16lorious Sun2, was used as a vehile for dollar saltin!- or to show
that they the)selves were du))ies of the #aroses. .!ain, the ourt held that the dou)entary
evidene relevant to this alle!ation was inad)issible for bein! )ere photoopies, and that the
affiants had not been presented as witnesses.
8inally, the ourt also !ranted the De)urrer filed by PE.%P&6FO. Fhile the ourt held that
there was no evidene to show that Pantrano was ille!ally a/uired, the for)er nevertheless
held that there was a need to first deter)ine the ownership of the disputed funds before they
ould be ordered released to the ri!htful owner.
On '( Dee)ber '((C, petitioner filed its #otion for Partial Reonsideration, insistin! that there
was a preponderane of evidene to show that respondents #aros siblin!s and 6re!orio .raneta
III had onnived with their parents in a/uirin! ill%!otten wealth. It pointed out that respondents
were o)pulsory heirs to the deposed President and were thus obli!ed to render an aountin!
and to return the ill%!otten wealth.
#oreover, petitioner asserted that the evidene established that the =eun!s were du))ies of the
#aroses, and that the Pantrano assets were part of the #aroses$ alle!ed ill%!otten wealth.
8inally, petitioner /uestioned the ourt$s rulin! that the evidene previously ad)itted was later
held to be inad)issible in evidene a!ainst respondents, thus, deprivin! the for)er of due
proess.
Inadvertently, petitioner was not able to serve a opy of the )otion on respondents I)ee #aros%
#anoto and Bon!bon! #aros, ;r. But upon reali5in! the oversi!ht, it i))ediately did so and
filed the orrespondin! #anifestation and #otion before the ourt. Nonetheless, this
inadvertene pro)pted I)ee #aros%#anoto and Bon!bon! #aros, ;r. to file their #otion for
Entry of ;ud!)ent.
On ' #arh '((4, the ourt issued the seond assailed Resolution,
"A
denyin! petitioner$s #otion.
&he ourt pointed out its reservation in its Resolution dated "' #arh '((', wherein it said that
it would still assess and wei!h the evidentiary value of the ad)itted evidene. 8urther)ore, it
said that even if it inluded the testi)onies of petitioner$s witnesses, these were not substantial to
hold respondents liable. &hus, the ourt said7
+HEREFORE, there bein! no suffiient reason to set aside the resolution dated Dee)ber 4,
'((C, the plaintiff$s #otion for Partial Reonsideration is hereby !ENIE!. &he plaintiff$s
#otion and #anifestation dated ;anuary "3, '((4 is GRNTE! in the interest of :ustie. &he
#otion for Entry of ;ud!)ent filed by defendants I)ee #aros and Bon!bon! #aros is
!ENIE!.
SO OR!ERE!.
?ene, this Petition.
Petitioner raises the sa)e issues it raised in its #otion for Reonsideration filed before the
Sandi!anbayan, to wit7
"C
I. &?E S.NDI6.NB.=.N ERRED IN 6R.N&IN6 &?E DE#DRRER &O
EHIDENCE 8IEED B= RESPONDEN&S #.. I#EED. 1I#EE2 R. #.RCOS .ND
8ERDIN.ND 1BON6BON62 R. #.RCOS, ;R., CONSIDERIN6 &?.& #ORE
&?.N PREPONDER.N& EHIDENCE ON RECORD CEE.RE= DE#ONS&R.&ES
&?EIR CONNIH.NCE FI&? 8OR#ER PRESIDEN& 8ERDIN.ND E. #.RCOS
.ND O&?ER #.RCOS DD##IES .ND .BDSED &?EIR POFER .ND
IN8EDENCE IN DNE.F8DEE= .#.SSIN6 8DNDS 8RO# &?E N.&ION.E
&RE.SDR=.
II. PE&I&ION PROHED, B= #ORE &?.N PREPONDER.N& EHIDENCE, &?.&
RESPONDEN&%SPODSES 6RE6ORIO .R.NE&. III .ND IRENE #.RCOS
.R.NE&. CONNIHED FI&? 8OR#ER PRESIDEN& #.RCOS IN DNE.F8DEE=
.CGDIRIN6 BDSINESS IN&ERES&S F?IC? .RE 6ROSSE=
DIS.DH.N&.6EODS &O &?E 6OHERN#EN&, .ND IN . #.NNER
PRO?IBI&ED DNDER &?E CONS&I&D&ION .ND .N&I%6R.8& S&.&D&ES.
III. RESPONDEN&S I#EE, BON6BON6, .ND IRENE #.RCOS .RE
CO#PDESOR= ?EIRS O8 8OR#ER PRESIDEN& #.RCOS .ND .RE EGD.EE=
OBEI6ED &O RENDER .N .CCODN&IN6 .ND RE&DRN &?E .EEE6ED IEE%
6O&&EN FE.E&? O8 &?E #.RCOSES.
IH. &?ERE EIIS&S CONCRE&E EHIDENCE PROHIN6 &?.& RESPONDEN&S
=EDN6 C?DN >.#, =EDN6 C?DN 8.N, .ND =EDN6 C?DN ?O .C&ED .S
DD##IES 8OR &?E #.RCOSES, .ND DSED &?E CORPOR.&ION, 6EORIODS
SDN, .S . CONDDI& IN .#.SSIN6 &?E IEE%6O&&EN FE.E&?.
.CCORDIN6E=, &?E S.NDI6.NB.=.N ERRED IN 6R.N&IN6 &?EIR
DE#DRRER &O EHIDENCE.
H. &?E DE#DRRER &O EHIDENCE 8IEED B= IN&ERHENOR PE.%P&6FO FI&?
RESPEC& &O &?E P.N&R.NCO .SSE&S S?ODED NO& ?.HE BEEN 6R.N&ED
SINCE .#PEE EHIDENCE PROHES &?.& &?E S.ID .SSE&S INDDBI&.BE=
8OR# P.R& O8 &?E #.RCOS IEE%6O&&EN FE.E&?, .S BD&&RESSED B=
&?E 8.C& &?.& NO ;DDICI.E DE&ER#IN.&ION ?.S BEEN #.DE .S &O
F?O# &?ESE .SSE&S RI6?&8DEE= BEEON6.
HI. &?E S.NDI6.NB.=.N$S RDEIN6 F?IC? RE;EC&ED PEI&I&ONER$S
DOCD#EN&.R= EI?IBI&S .EEE6EDE= 8OR BEIN6 @IN.D#ISSIBEE@
DIREC&E= CON&R.DIC&S I&S E.REIER RDEIN6 .D#I&&IN6 .EE S.ID
DOCD#EN&.R= EHIDENCE .ND F.S RENDERED IN . #.NNER &?.&
DEPRIHED PE&I&IONER$S RI6?& &O DDE PROCESS O8 E.F.
&here is so)e )erit in petitioner$s ontention.
T,e Mar-o/ S0b10'2/ a'(
Gre2or0o ra'e.a III
Closely analy5in! petitioner$s Co)plaint and the present Petition for Review, it is lear that the
#aros siblin!s are bein! sued in two apaities7 first, as o%onspirators in the alle!ed
au)ulation of ill%!otten wealth- and seond, as the o)pulsory heirs of their father, 8erdinand
E. #aros.
"4
Fith re!ard to the first alle!ation, as ontained in para!raph ', of its &hird .)ended Co)plaint
/uoted above, petitioner aused the #aros siblin!s of havin! ollaborated with, partiipated in,
and9or benefitted fro) their parents$ alle!ed au)ulation of ill%!otten wealth. In partiular, as
far as I)ee #aros%#anoto was onerned, she was aused of dollar saltin! by usin! 6lorious
Sun to i)port deni) fabris fro) one supplier at pries )uh hi!her than those paid by other
users of si)ilar )aterials. It was also alle!ed that the #aroses personally benefitted fro) the
se/uestered )edia networ*s IBC%"+, BBC%', and RPN%,, in whih I)ee #aros had a
substantial interest.
Irene #aros%.raneta, on the other hand, was aused of havin! onspired with her husband,
respondent 6re!orio .raneta III, in his bein! President #aros$ onduit to Pantrano, thereby
pavin! the way for the President$s ownership of the o)pany in violation of .rtile HII, Setion
A, para!raph ' of the ",<+ Constitution.
"<
&o prove the !eneral alle!ations a!ainst the #aros siblin!s, petitioner pri)arily relied on the
Sworn State)ent
"3
and the Deposition
",
of one of the finanial advisors of President #aros,
Rolando C. 6apud, ta*en in ?on! >on! on various dates.
#eanwhile, to prove the partiipation and interests of I)ee #aros%#anoto in De Soleil
.pparel and the )edia networ*s, petitioner relied on the .ffidavits of Ra)on S. #on5on,
'(

=eun! >wo* =in!,
'"
and Rodolfo H. Puno-
''
and the transript of steno!raphi notes 1&SN2 ta*en
durin! the PC66 hearin! held on 3 ;une ",3<.
'+
.s to spouses Irene #aros%.raneta and 6re!orio .raneta III, petitioner sub)itted the .rtiles
of Inorporation of Northern E0press &ransport, In.-
'A
the #e)orandu) of .!ree)ent
'C
and the
Purhase .!ree)ent
'4
between Pantrano and Batan!as Ea!una &ayabas Bus Co)pany, In.
1BE&BCo.2- the Confidential #e)orandu) re!ardin! the sale of the Pantrano assets-
'<
the
.ffidavit
'3
and the letter to the PC66
',
of Dolores .. Poteniano, owner of BE&BCo.- the
.ffidavit
+(
and the #e)orandu)
+"
of Eduardo 8a:ardo, who was then the Senior Hie%President
of the .ount #ana!e)ent 6roup of the Philippine National Ban* 1PNB2, whih was in turn
the reditor for the Pantrano sale- and the .ffidavit of 8lorenio P. Euio, who was the Senior
.ount Speialist of the National Invest)ent and Develop)ent Corporation.
+'
Petitioner ontends that these dou)ents fall under the Rule$s third e0eption, that is, these
dou)ents are publi reords in the ustody of a publi offier or are reorded in a publi offie.
It is its theory that sine these dou)ents were olleted by the PC66, then, neessarily, the
onditions for the e0eption to apply had been )et. .lternatively, it asserts that the @dou)ents
were offered to prove not only the truth of the reitals of the dou)ents, but also of other
e0ternal or ollateral fats.@
++
T,e Cour.3/ Ru10'2
Pe.0.0o'er 4a01e( .o ob/er5e .,e
be/. e50(e'-e ru1e.
It is petitioner$s burden to prove the alle!ations in its Co)plaint. 8or relief to be !ranted, the
operative at on how and in what )anner the #aros siblin!s partiipated in and9or benefitted
fro) the ats of the #aros ouple )ust be learly shown throu!h a preponderane of evidene.
Should petitioner fail to dishar!e this burden, the Court is onstrained and is left with no hoie
but to uphold the De)urrer to Evidene filed by respondents.
8irst, petitioner does not deny that what should be proved are the ontents of the dou)ents
the)selves. It is i)perative, therefore, to sub)it the ori!inal dou)ents that ould prove
petitioner$s alle!ations.
&hus, the photoopied dou)ents are in violation Rule "+(, Se. + of the Rules of Court,
otherwise *nown as the best evidene rule, whih )andates that the evidene )ust be the
ori!inal dou)ent itself. &he ori!in of the best evidene rule an be found and traed to as early
as the "3th entury in O)yhund v. Bar*er,
+A
wherein the Court of Chanery said7
&he :ud!es and sa!es of the law have laid it down that .,ere 0/ bu. o'e 2e'era1 ru1e o4
e50(e'-e, the best that the nature of the case will admit.
T,e ru1e 0/, .,a. 04 .,e 6r0.0'2/ ,a5e /ub/-r0b0'2 60.'e//e/ .o .,e7, .,ey 7u/. be 8ro5e( by
.,o/e 60.'e//e/.
&he first !round :ud!es have !one upon in departin! fro) strit rules, is an absolute strit
neessity. Secondly, a presu)ed neessity. In the ase of writin!s, subsribed by witnesses, if all
are dead, the proof of one of their hands is suffiient to establish the deed7 where an ori!inal is
lost, a opy )ay be ad)itted- if no opy, 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 evidene.
Petitioner did not even atte)pt to provide a plausible reason why the ori!inals were not
presented, or any o)pellin! !round why the ourt should ad)it these dou)ents as seondary
evidene absent the testi)ony of the witnesses who had e0euted the).
In partiular, it )ay not insist that the photoopies of the dou)ents fall under Se. < of Rule
"+(, whih states7
Evidene ad)issible when ori!inal dou)ent is a publi reord. J Fhen the ori!inal of a
dou)ent is in the ustody of a publi offier or is reorded in a publi offie, its ontents )ay
be proved be a ertified opy issued by the publi offier in ustody thereof.
Ses. ", and '( of Rule "+' provide7
SEC&ION ",. Classes of documents. J 8or the purpose of their presentation in evidene,
dou)ents are either publi or private.
Publi dou)ents are7
1a2 &he written offiial ats, or reords of the offiial ats of the soverei!n authority,
offiial bodies and tribunals, and publi offiers, whether of the Philippines, or of a
forei!n ountry-
1b2 Dou)ents a*nowled!ed before a notary publi e0ept last wills and testa)ents- and
12 Publi reords, *ept in the Philippines, of private dou)ents re/uired by law to be
entered therein.
.ll other writin!s are private.
SEC&ION '(. Proof of private document. K Before any private dou)ent offered as authenti is
reeived in evidene, its due e0eution and authentiity )ust be proved either7
1a2 By anyone who saw the dou)ent e0euted or written- or
1b2 By evidene of the !enuineness of the si!nature or handwritin! of the )a*er.
.ny other private dou)ent need only be identified as that whih it is lai)ed to be.
&he fat that these dou)ents were olleted by the PC66 in the ourse of its investi!ations
does not )a*e the) per se publi reords referred to in the /uoted rule.
Petitioner presented as witness its reords offier, #aria Eourdes #a!no, who testified that these
publi and private dou)ents had been !athered by and ta*en into the ustody of the PC66 in
the ourse of the Co))ission$s investi!ation of the alle!ed ill%!otten wealth of the #aroses.
?owever, !iven the purposes for whih these dou)ents were sub)itted, #a!no was not a
redible witness who ould testify as to their ontents. &o reiterate, @LiMf the writin!s have
subsribin! witnesses to the), they )ust be proved by those witnesses.@ Fitnesses an testify
only to those fats whih are of their personal *nowled!e- that is, those derived fro) their own
pereption.
+C
&hus, #a!no ould only testify as to how she obtained ustody of these dou)ents,
but not as to the ontents of the dou)ents the)selves.
Neither did petitioner present as witnesses the affiants of these .ffidavits or #e)oranda
sub)itted to the ourt. Basi is the rule that, while affidavits )ay be onsidered as publi
dou)ents if they are a*nowled!ed before a notary publi, these .ffidavits are still lassified as
hearsay evidene. &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 lan!ua!e in writin! the affiantNs state)ents, parts of
whih )ay thus be either o)itted or )isunderstood by the one writin! the). #oreover, the
adverse party is deprived of the opportunity to ross%e0a)ine the affiants. 8or this reason,
affidavits are !enerally re:eted for bein! hearsay, unless the affiants the)selves are plaed on
the witness stand to testify thereon.
+4
.s to the opy of the &SN of the proeedin!s before the PC66, while it )ay be onsidered as a
publi dou)ent sine it was ta*en in the ourse of the PC66$s e0erise of its )andate, it was
not attested to by the le!al ustodian to be a orret opy of the ori!inal. &his o)ission falls short
of the re/uire)ent of Rule "+', Ses. 'A and 'C of the Rules of Court.
+<
In su))ary, we adopt the rulin! of the Sandi!anbayan, to wit7
8urther, a!ain ontrary to the theory of the plaintiff, the presentation of the ori!inals of the
aforesaid e0hibits is not validly e0epted under Rule "+(, Setion + 1a2, 1b2, and 1d2 of the Rules
of Court. Dnder para!raph 1d2, when Othe ori!inal dou)ent is a publi reord in the ustody of a
publi offier or is reorded in a publi offie,$ presentation of the ori!inal thereof is e0epted.
?owever, as earlier observed, all e0ept one of the e0hibits introdued by the plaintiff were not
neessarily publi dou)ents. &he transript of steno!raphi notes 1&SN2 of the proeedin!s
purportedly before the PC66, the plaintiff$s e0hibit @G@, )ay be a publi dou)ent, but what
was presented by the plaintiff was a )ere photoopy of the purported &SN. &he Rules provide
that when the ori!inal dou)ent is in the ustody of a publi offier or is reorded in a publi
offie, its ontents )ay be proved by a ertified opy issued by the publi offier in ustody
thereof. E0hibit @G@ was not a ertified opy and it was not even si!ned by the steno!rapher who
supposedly too* down the proeedin!s.
&he rest of the above%)entioned e0hibits annot li*ewise be e0epted under para!raphs 1a2 and
1b2 of Setion +. Setion C of the sa)e Rule provides that Owhen the ori!inal dou)ents has been
lost or destroyed, or annot be produed in ourt, the offeror, upon proof of its e0eution or
e0istene and the ause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, )ay prove its ontents
by a opy, or by a reital of its ontents in so)e authenti dou)ent, or by the testi)ony of
witnesses in the order stated.$ &hus, in order that seondary evidene )ay be ad)issible, there
)ust be proof by satisfatory evidene of 1"2 due e0eution of the ori!inal- 1'2 loss, destrution
or unavailability of all suh ori!inals and 1+2 reasonable dili!ene and !ood faith in the searh
for or atte)pt to produe the ori!inal. None of these re/uire)ents were o)plied with by the
plaintiff. Si)ilar to e0hibit OG$, e0hibits OP$, OR$, OS$, and O&$ were all photoopies. OP$, OR$, and
O&$ were affidavits of persons who did not testify before the Court. E0hibit OS$ is a letter whih is
learly a private dou)ent. Not only does it not fall within the e0eptions of Setion +, it is also
a )ere photoopy. .s Fe previously e)phasi5ed, even if ori!inals of these affidavits were
presented, they would still be onsidered hearsay evidene if the affiants do not testify and
identify the).
+3
&hus, absent any onvinin! evidene to hold otherwise, it follows that petitioner failed to prove
that the #aros siblin!s and 6re!orio .raneta III ollaborated with for)er President #aros and
I)elda R. #aros and partiipated in the first ouple$s alle!ed au)ulation of ill%!otten wealth
insofar as the speifi alle!ations herein were onerned.
T,e Mar-o/ /0b10'2/ are -o78u1/ory ,e0r/.
&o reiterate, in its third .)ended Co)plaint, petitioner prays that the #aros respondents be
)ade to 1"2 pay for the value of the alle!ed ill%!otten wealth with interest fro) the date of
a/uisition- 1'2 render a o)plete aountin! and inventory of all funds and other piees of
property le!ally or benefiially held and9or ontrolled by the), as well as their le!al and
benefiial interest therein- 1+2 pay atual da)a!es esti)ated at P'(( billion and additional atual
da)a!es to rei)burse e0penses for the reovery of the alle!ed ill%!otten wealth esti)ated at
P'C( )illion or in suh a)ount as )ay be proven durin! trial- 1A2 pay )oral da)a!es a)ountin!
to PC( billion- 1C2 pay te)perate and no)inal da)a!es, as well as attorney$s fees and liti!ation
e0penses in an a)ount to be proven durin! the trial- 142 pay e0e)plary da)a!es in the a)ount of
P" billion- and 1<2 pay treble :udiial osts.
+,
It )ust be stressed that we are faed with e0eptional iru)stanes, !iven the nature and the
e0tent of the properties involved in the ase pendin! with the Sandi!anbayan. It bears e)phasis
that the Co)plaint is one for the reversion, the reonveyane, the restitution and the aountin!
of alle!ed ill%!otten wealth and the pay)ent of da)a!es. Based on the alle!ations of the
Co)plaint, the ourt is har!ed with the tas* of 1"2 deter)inin! the properties in the #aros
estate that onstitute the alle!ed ill%!otten wealth- 1'2 train! where these properties are- 1+2
issuin! the appropriate orders for the aountin!, the reovery, and the pay)ent of these
properties- and, finally, 1A2 deter)inin! if the award of da)a!es is proper.
Sine the pendin! ase before the Sandi!anbayan survives the death of 8erdinand E. #aros, it is
i)perative therefore that the estate be duly represented. &he purpose behind this rule is the
protetion of the ri!ht to due proess of every party to a liti!ation who )ay be affeted by the
intervenin! death. &he deeased liti!ant is hi)self proteted, as he ontinues to be properly
represented in the suit throu!h the duly appointed le!al representative of his estate.
A(
On that
note, we ta*e :udiial notie of the probate proeedin!s re!ardin! the will of 8erdinand E.
#aros. In Republi of the Philippines v. #aros II,
A"
we upheld the !rant by the Re!ional &rial
Court 1R&C2 of letters testa)entary in solidum to 8erdinand R. #aros, ;r. and I)elda
Ro)ualde5%#aros as e0eutors of the last will and testa)ent of the late 8erdinand E. #aros.
Dnless the e0eutors of the #aros estate or the heirs are ready to waive in favor of the state
their ri!ht to defend or protet the estate or those properties found to be ill%!otten in their
possession, ontrol or ownership, then they )ay not be dropped as defendants in the ivil ase
pendin! before the Sandi!anbayan.
Rule +, Se. < of the Rules of Court defines indispensable parties as those parties%in%interest
without who) there an be no final deter)ination of an ation. &hey are those parties who
possess suh an interest in the ontroversy that a final deree would neessarily affet their
ri!hts, so that the ourts annot proeed without their presene. Parties are indispensable if their
interest in the sub:et )atter of the suit and in the relief sou!ht is ine0triably intertwined with
that of the other parties.
A'
In order to reah a final deter)ination of the )atters onernin! the estate of 8erdinand E.
#aros B that is, the aountin! and the reovery of ill%!otten wealth B the present ase )ust be
)aintained a!ainst I)elda #aros and herein respondent 8erdinand @Bon!bon!@ R. #aros, ;r.,
as e0eutors of the #aros estate pursuant to Se. " of Rule 3< of the Rules of Court. .ordin!
to this provision, ations )ay be o))ened to reover fro) the estate, real or personal
property, or an interest therein, or to enfore a lien thereon- and ations to reover da)a!es for
an in:ury to person or property, real or personal, )ay be o))ened a!ainst the e0eutors.
Fe also hold that the ation )ust li*ewise be )aintained a!ainst I)ee #aros%#anoto and
Irene #aros%.raneta on the basis of the non%e0haustive list attahed as .nne0 @.@ to the &hird
.)ended Co)plaint, whih states that the listed properties therein were owned by 8erdinand
and I)elda #aros and their i))ediate fa)ily.
A+
It is only durin! the trial of Civil Case No.
(((' before the Sandi!anbayan that there ould be a deter)ination of whether these properties
are indeed ill%!otten or were le!iti)ately a/uired by respondents and their predeessors. &hus,
while it was not proven that respondents onspired in au)ulatin! ill%!otten wealth, they )ay
be in possession, ownership or ontrol of suh ill%!otten properties or the proeeds thereof as
heirs of the #aros ouple. &hus, their la* of partiipation in any ille!al at does not re)ove the
harater of the property as ill%!otten and, therefore, as ri!htfully belon!in! to the State.
Seondly, under the rules of suession, the heirs instantaneously bea)e o%owners of the
#aros properties upon the death of the President. &he property ri!hts and obli!ations to the
e0tent of the value of the inheritane of a person are trans)itted to another throu!h the
deedent$s death.
AA
In this onept, nothin! prevents the heirs fro) e0erisin! their ri!ht to
transfer or dispose of the properties that onstitute their le!iti)es, even absent their delaration
or absent the partition or the distribution of the estate. In ;a*osale) v. Rafols,
AC
we said7
.rtile AA( of the Civil Code provides that ".,e 8o//e//0o' o4 ,ere(0.ary 8ro8er.y 0/ (ee7e(
.o be .ra'/70..e( .o .,e ,e0r 60.,ou. 0'.erru8.0o' 4ro7 .,e 0'/.a'. o4 .,e (ea., o4 .,e
(e-e(e'., 0' -a/e .,e 0',er0.a'-e be a--e8.e(." .nd #anresa with reason states that u8o' .,e
(ea., o4 a 8er/o', ea-, o4 ,0/ ,e0r/ "be-o7e/ .,e u'(050(e( o6'er o4 .,e 6,o1e e/.a.e 1e4.
60., re/8e-. .o .,e 8ar. or 8or.0o' 6,0-, 702,. be a(9u(0-a.e( .o ,07, a -o77u'0.y o4
o6'er/,08 be0'2 .,u/ 4or7e( a7o'2 .,e -oo6'er/ o4 .,e e/.a.e 6,01e 0. re7a0'/
u'(050(e(." 1+ #anresa, +C<- .lala vs. .lala, +C Phil. 4<,.2 .nd aordin! to artile +,, of
the Civil Code, e5ery 8ar. o6'er 7ay a//02' or 7or.2a2e ,0/ 8ar. 0' .,e -o77o' 8ro8er.y,
and the effet of suh assi!n)ent or )ort!a!e shall be li)ited to the portion whih )ay be
allotted hi) in the partition upon the dissolution of the o))unity. He'-e, 0' .,e -a/e o4
Ra70re: 5/. Bau.0/.a, 1; P,01. <28, 6,ere /o7e o4 .,e ,e0r/, 60.,ou. .,e -o'-urre'-e o4 .,e
o.,er/, /o1( a 8ro8er.y 1e4. by .,e0r (e-ea/e( 4a.,er, .,0/ Cour., /8ea=0'2 .,ru 0./ .,e' C,0e4
$u/.0-e Caye.a'o re11a'o, /a0( .,a. .,e /a1e 6a/ 5a10(, bu. .,a. .,e e44e-. .,ereo4 6a/
1070.e( .o .,e /,are 6,0-, 7ay be a11o..e( .o .,e 5e'(or/ u8o' .,e 8ar.0.0o' o4 .,e e/.a.e.
1E)phasis supplied2
Eastly, petitioner$s prayer in its &hird .)ended Co)plaint diretly refers to herein respondents,
to wit7
". .S &O &?E 8IRS& SECOND .ND &?IRD C.DSES O8 .C&ION B To re.ur' a'(
re-o'5ey .o P1a0'.044 a11 4u'(/ a'( o.,er 8ro8er.y a->u0re( by Defendants durin! their
inu)beny as publi offiers, whih funds and other property are )anifestly out of
proportion to their salaries, other lawful ino)e and ino)e fro) le!iti)ately a/uired
property whih Defendants have failed to establish as havin! been, in fat, lawfully
a/uired by the), alternatively, to solidarily pay Plaintiff the value thereof with interest
thereon fro) the date of a/uisition until full pay)ent.
'. .S &O &?E 8ODR&? C.DSE O8 .C&ION B .o 0'(050(ua11y re'(er .o .,0/
Ho'orab1e Cour. a -o781e.e a--ou'.0'2 a'( 0'5e'.ory, sub:et to evaluation of
Court%appointed assessors, of all funds and other property le!ally or benefiially held
and9or ontrolled by the), as well as their le!al and benefiial interest in suh funds and
other property. 1E)phasis supplied2
In su), the #aros siblin!s are )aintained as respondents, beause 1"2 the ation pendin! before
the Sandi!anbayan is one that survives death, and, therefore, the ri!hts to the estate )ust be duly
proteted- 1'2 they alle!edly ontrol, possess or own ill%!otten wealth, thou!h their diret
involve)ent in au)ulatin! or a/uirin! suh wealth )ay not have been proven.
%eu'2 C,u' &a7, %eu'2 C,u'
Ho '( %eu'2 C,u' Fa'
It is worthy to note that respondents draw our attention to .)erian Inter%8ashion Corporation v.
Offie of the President
A4
in whih they ontend that this Court onsidered the alle!ation of dollar
saltin! as baseless. &he ited ase, however, finds no appliation herein as the for)er )erely
ruled that 6lorious Sun was denied due proess when it was not furnished by the 6ar)ents and
&e0tile E0port Board 16&EB2 any basis for the anellation of the e0port /uota beause of
alle!ations of dollar saltin!. &hat Deision did not prevent petitioner fro) adduin! evidene to
support its alle!ation in Civil Case No. (((' before the Sandi!anbayan under a different ause of
ation.
Nevertheless, the alle!ations a!ainst =eun! Chun >a), =eun! Chun ?o and =eun! Chun 8an in
the ase at bar were also proved to be baseless. .!ain, petitioner failed to illustrate how
respondents herein ated as du))ies of the #aroses in a/uirin! ill%!otten wealth. &his Court
notes that the Co)plaint a!ainst the =eun!s alle!es that the #aroses used 6lorious Sun B the
!ar)ent o)pany in whih the =eun!s are ontrollin! sto*holders B for ille!al dollar saltin!
throu!h the o)pany$s i)portation of deni) fabris fro) only one supplier at pries )uh
hi!her than those bein! paid by other users of si)ilar )aterials. Notably, no )ention of De Soleil
.pparel was )ade.
&o prove its alle!ations, petitioner sub)itted the ontroverted E0hibits @P,@ @G,@ @R,@ @S,@ and
@&.@ .s earlier disussed in detail, these piees of evidene were )ere photoopies of the
ori!inals and were unauthentiated by the persons who e0euted the)- thus, they have no
probative value. Even the alle!ations of petitioner itself in its Petition for Review are bereft of
any fatual basis for holdin! that these dou)ents undoubtedly show respondents$ partiipation
in the alle!ed dollar saltin!. &he pertinent portion of the Petition reads7
&o illustrate, the .ffidavit dated #ay ',, ",3< e0euted by #r. Ra)on #on5on whih was
sub)itted as E?,0b0. P, showed that respondent I)ee #aros%#anoto owns and ontrols IBC%
"+, BBC%' and 1R2PN%,, and has interest in the De Soleil .pparel. &he testi)ony of #r. Ra)on
#on5on durin! the hearin! on ;une 3, ",3< before the Presidential Co))ission on 6ood
6overn)ent as shown in the &ransript of Steno!raphi Notes also affir)ed his delarations in
the .ffidavit dated #ay ',, ",3<. &he &ransript of Steno!raphi Notes dated ;une 3, ",3< was
presented as E?,0b0. @. #oreover, the .ffidavit dated #arh '", ",34 of =eun! >wo* =in!
whih was presented as E?,0b0. R dislosed that I)ee #aros%#anoto is the owner of 4<P
e/uity of De Soleil .pparel. &he letter dated ;uly "<, ",3A si!ned by seven 1<2 inorporators of
De Soleil .pparel, addressed to ?on!*on! investors whih was presented as E?,0b0. S
onfir)ed that the si!natories hold or own 4<P e/uity of the orporation in behalf of the
benefiial owners previously dislosed to the addressees. In addition to the fore!oin! dou)ents,
petitioner presented the .ffidavit of Rodolfo H. Puno, Chair)an of the 6ar)ents and &e0tile
E0port 6roup 16&EB2 as E?,0b0. T wherein he ate!orially delared that the )a:ority of De
Soleil .pparel was atually owned by respondent I)ee #aros%#anoto.
A<
&he fore!oin! /uotation fro) the Petition is bereft of any fatual )atter that warrants a
onsideration by the Court. Strai!ht fro) the horse$s )outh, these dou)ents are only )eant to
show the ownership and interest of I)ee #aros #anoto in De Soleil B and not how respondent
supposedly partiipated in dollar saltin! or in the au)ulation of ill%!otten wealth.
PE#PTG+O
&he PE.%P&6FO De)urrer to Evidene was !ranted pri)arily as a onse/uene of the
proseution$s failure to establish that the assets of Pantrano were ill%!otten, as disussed earlier.
&hus, we find no error in the assailed Order of the Sandi!anbayan.
F0'a1 No.e
.s earlier adverted to, the best evidene rule has been reo!ni5ed as an evidentiary standard
sine the "3th entury. 8or three enturies, it has been pratied as one of the )ost basi rules in
law. It is diffiult to oneive that one ould have finished law shool and passed the bar
e0a)inations without *nowin! suh ele)entary rule. &hus, it is deeply disturbin! that the PC66
and the Offie of the Soliitor 6eneral 1OS62 B the very a!enies sworn to protet the interest of
the state and its people B ould ondut their proseution in the )anner that they did. &o
e)phasi5e, the PC66 is a hi!hly speiali5ed offie foused on the reovery of ill%!otten wealth,
while the OS6 is the prinipal le!al defender of the !overn)ent. &he lawyers of these
!overn)ent a!enies are e0peted to be the best in the le!al profession.
?owever, despite havin! the e0pansive resoures of !overn)ent, the )e)bers of the proseution
did not even bother to provide any reason whatsoever for their failure to present the ori!inal
dou)ents or the witnesses to support the !overn)ent$s lai)s. Even worse was presentin! in
evidene a photoopy of the &SN of the PC66 proeedin!s instead of the ori!inal, or a ertified
true opy of the ori!inal, whih the proseutors the)selves should have had in their ustody.
Suh )anner of le!al pratie deserves the reproof of this Court. Fe are onstrained to all
attention to this apparently serious failure to follow a )ost basi rule in law, !iven the speial
iru)stanes surroundin! this ase.
&he publi proseutors should e)ploy and use all !overn)ent resoures and powers effiiently,
effetively, honestly and eono)ially, partiularly to avoid wasta!e of publi funds and
revenues. &hey should perfor) and dishar!e their duties with the hi!hest de!ree of e0ellene,
professionalis), intelli!ene and s*ill.
A3
&he basi ideal of the le!al profession is to render servie and seure :ustie for those see*in! its
aid.
A,
In order to do this, lawyers are re/uired to observe and adhere to the hi!hest ethial and
professional standards. &he le!al profession is so i)bued with publi interest that its
pratitioners are aountable not only to their lients, but to the publi as well.
&he publi proseutors, aside fro) bein! representatives of the !overn)ent and the state, are,
first and fore)ost, offiers of the ourt. &hey too* the oath to e0ert every effort and to onsider it
their duty to assist in the speedy and effiient ad)inistration of :ustie.
C(
Eawyers owe fidelity to
the ause of the lient and should be )indful of the trust and onfidene reposed in the).
C"

?ene, should serve with o)petene and dili!ene.
C'
Fe note that there are instanes when this Court )ay overturn the dis)issal of the lower ourts
in instanes when it is shown that the proseution has deprived the parties their due proess of
law. In #eriales v. Court of .ppeals,
C+
we reversed the Deision of the R&C in dis)issin! the
ri)inal ase for rape with ho)iide. In that ase, it was very apparent that the publi proseutor
violated the due proess ri!hts of the private o)plainant owin! to its blatant disre!ard of
proedural rules and the failure to present available ruial evidene, whih would tend to prove
the !uilt or innoene of the aused therein. #oreover, we li*ewise found that the trial ourt
was !ravely re)iss in its duty to ferret out the truth and, instead, :ust @passively wathed as the
publi proseutor bun!led the ase.@
?owever, it )ust be e)phasi5ed that #eriales was filed e0atly to deter)ine whether the
proseution and the trial ourt !ravely abused their disretion in the proeedin!s of the ase, thus
resultin! in the denial of the offended party$s due proess. #eanwhile, the present ase )erely
alle!es that there was an error in the Sandi!anbayan$s onsideration of the probative value of
evidene. Fe also note that in #eriales, both the proseution and the trial ourt were found to
be e/ually !uilty of serious nonfeasane, whih pro)pted us to re)and the ase to the trial ourt
for further proeedin!s and reeption of evidene. #eriales is thus inappliable to the ase at
bar.
Nevertheless, !iven the partiular onte0t of this ase, the failure of the proseution to adhere to
so)ethin! as basi as the best evidene rule raises serious doubts on the level and /uality of
effort !iven to the !overn)ent$s ause. &hus, we hi!hly enoura!e the Offie of the President,
the OS6, and the PC66 to ondut the appropriate investi!ation and onse/uent ation on this
)atter.
+HEREFORE, in view of the fore!oin!, the Petition is P.R&I.EE= GRNTE!. &he assailed
Sandi!anbayan Resolution dated 4 Dee)ber '((C is FFIRME! with #ODI8IC.&ION. 8or
the reasons stated herein, respondents I)elda #aros%#anoto, Irene #aros%.raneta, and
8erdinand R. #aros, ;r. shall be )aintained as defendants in Civil Case No. (((' pendin!
before the Sandi!anbayan.
Eet a opy of this Deision be furnished to the Offie of the President so that it )ay loo* into the
iru)stanes of this ase and deter)ine the liability, if any, of the lawyers of the Offie of the
Soliitor 6eneral and the Presidential Co))ission on 6ood 6overn)ent in the )anner by whih
this ase was handled in the Sandi!anbayan.
SO ORDERED
SODRCE7 http799lawphil.net9:ud:uris9:uri'("'9feb'("'9!rQ"<"<("Q'("'.ht)l