repubic vs marcos

8/16/2019 Repubic vs Marcos

1/37

[G.R. No. 152154. July 15, 2003.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner , . HONOR!BLE S!N"IG!NB!#!N $SPECI!L FIRST

"I%ISION&, FER"IN!N" E. '!RCOS $REPRESENTE" B# HIS EST!TE(HEIRS) I'EL"! R.

'!RCOS, '!RI! I'EL"! [I'EE] '!RCOS*'!NOTOC, FER"IN!N" R. '!RCOS, JR. !N" IRENE

'!RCOS*!R!NET!& !N" I'EL"! RO'U!L"E+ '!RCOS, Respondents.

" E C I S I O N

CORON!, J.)

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking to (1) set aside the Resolution datedJanuary 31, 2002 issued y the !pe"ial #irst $i%ision of the !andiganayan in Ci%il Case &o' 011 entitled Repuli"of the hilippines %' #erdinand *' +ar"os, et' al', and (2) reinstate its earlier de"ision dated !epteer 1-, 2000.hi"h forfeited in fa%or of petitioner Repuli" of the hilippines (Repuli") the aount held in es"ro. in thehilippine &ational /ank (&/) in the aggregate aount of !65,15,33'60 as of January 31, 2002'"hanro1es%irtua1 1a. 1irary

/4CR7&$ 7# T8* C4!*

7n $e"eer 1, 1--1, petitioner Repuli", through the residential Coission on ood o%ernent (C),represented y the 7ffi"e of the !oli"itor eneral (7!), filed a petition for forfeiture efore the !andiganayan,do"keted as Ci%il Case &o' 011 entitled Repuli" of the hilippines %' #erdinand *' +ar"os, represented y his*state98eirs and :elda R' +ar"os, pursuant to R4 13- 1 in relation to *;e"uti%e 7rder &os' 1, 2 2, 3 1 and 1<4' 5

:n said "ase, petitioner sought the de"laration of the aggregate aount of !356 illion (no. estiated to e orethan !65 illion in"lusi%e of interest) deposited in es"ro. in the &/, as ill


2/37

The eneral 4greeent9!uppleental 4greeents sought to identify, "ollate, "ause the in%entory of and distriuteall assets presued to e o.ned y the +ar"os faily under the "onditions "ontained therein' The aforeentionedeneral 4greeent spe"ified in one of its preises or E.hereas "lausesE the fa"t that petitioner Eotained a Fudgent fro the !.iss #ederal Triunal on $e"eer 21, 1--0, that the Three 8undred #iftyerland, an additionalreDuest for the iediate transfer of the deposits to an es"ro. a""ount in the &/' The reDuest .as granted' 7nappeal y the +ar"oses, the !.iss #ederal !upree Court, in a de"ision dated $e"eer 10, 1--, upheld the rulingof the $istri"t 4ttorney of Guri"h granting the reDuest for the transfer of the funds' :n 1--, the funds .ere reittedto the hilippines in es"ro.' !useDuently, respondent +ar"os "hildren o%ed that the funds e pla"ed in "ustodialegis e"ause the deposit in es"ro. in the &/ .as allegedly in danger of dissipation y petitioner' The!andiganayan, in its resolution dated !epteer , 1--, granted the otion'

4fter the pre


3/37

Respondent +rs' +ar"os filed her opposition to the petitioners otion for suary Fudgent, .hi"h opposition.as later adopted y her "o


4/37

4' R:?4T* R*!7&$*&T! C4T*7R:C4II 4$+:TT*$ &7T 7&I T8* *R!7&4IC:RC+!T4&C*! 7# #*R$:&4&$ *' +4RC7! 4&$ :+*I$4 R' +4RC7! 4! /I:C 7##:C:4I! /T4I!7 T8* *AT*&T 7# T8*:R !4I4R:*! 4! !C8 /I:C 7##:C:4I!, B87 &$*R T8*C7&!T:TT:7&, B*R* R78:/:T*$ #R7+ *&4:& :& T8* +4&4*+*&T 7# #7&$4T:7&!'

/' R:?4T* R*!7&$*&T! 4I!7 4$+:TT*$ T8* *A:!T*&C* 7# T8* !B:!! $*7!:T! 4&$ T8*:R7B&*R!8: T8*R*7#="hanro1es %irtual 1a. lirary

1' 4$+:!!:7&! :& R:?4T* R*!7&$*&T! 4&!B*R@

2' 4$+:!!:7& :& T8* *&*R4I9!I*+*&T4I 4R**+*&T! T8* !:&*$ 4&$ !78T T7:+I*+*&T@

3' 4$+:!!:7& :& 4 +4&:#*!T4T:7& 7# R:?4T* R*!7&$*&T :+*I$4 R' +4RC7! 4&$ :& T8*+7T:7& T7 I4C* T8* R*! :& C!T7$:4 I*:!@ 4&$

' 4$+:!!:7& :& T8* &$*RT4:& T7 4 T8* 8+4& R:8T! ?:CT:+!'

C' *T:T:7&*R 84! R7?*$ T8* *AT*&T 7# T8* I*:T:+4T* :&C7+* 7# #*R$:&4&$ *'+4RC7! 4&$ :+*I$4 R' +4RC7! 4! /I:C 7##:C:4I!'

$' *T:T:7&*R 84! *!T4/I:!8*$ 4 R:+4 #4C:* R*!+T:7& 7# &I4B#II 4CL:R*$B*4IT8'

::

!++4R J$+*&T :! R7*R !:&C* R:?4T* R*!7&$*&T! 84?* &7T R4:!*$ 4& *&:&*:!!* 7# #4CT C7&!:$*R:& T84T="hanro1es %irtual 1a. lirary

4' R:?4T* R*!7&$*&T! $*#*&!* T84T !B:!! $*7!:T! B*R* I4B#II 4CL:R*$ $7*! &7T 7&I #4:I T7 T*&$*R 4& :!!* /T :! CI*4RI 4 !84+@ 4&$

/' :& !/!*L*&TI $:!CI4:+:& 7B&*R!8: 7# T8* !B:!! $*7!:T!, R:?4T* R*!7&$*&T!4/4&$7&*$ T8*:R !84+ $*#*&!* 7# I*:T:+4T* 4CL:!:T:7&, 4&$ T8:! #RT8*R J!T:#:*$T8* R*&$:T:7& 7# 4 !++4R J$+*&T'

:::

T8* #7R*:& #7&$4T:7&! &**$ &7T /* :+I*4$*$'

:?

T8* 87&7R4/I* R*!:$:& J!T:C* C7++:TT*$ R4?* 4/!* 7# $:!CR*T:7& :& R*?*R!:&

8:+!*I# 7& T8* R7&$ T84T 7R::&4I C7:*! 7# T8* 4T8*&T:C4T*$ !B:!! $*C:!:7&!4&$ T8*:R E4T8*&T:C4T*$ TR4&!I4T:7&!E 84?* &7T /**& !/+:TT*$ T7 T8* C7RT,B8*& *4RI:*R T8* !4&$:4&/44& 84! L7T*$ *AT*&!:?*I 4 7RT:7& 7# T8*TR4&!I4T:7& 7# 7&* 7# T8*!* !B:!! $*C:!:7&! :& 8:! M7&*&C:4N $4T*$ JI 2-, 1--- B8*&:T $*&:*$ T8* +7T:7& T7 R*I*4!* 7&* 8&$R*$ #:#T +:II:7& ! $7II4R! (150,000,000'00)T7 T8* 8+4& R:8T! ?:CT:+!'

?

Page 4 of 37


5/37

R:?4T* R*!7&$*&T! 4R* $**+*$ T7 84?* B4:?*$ T8*:R 7/J*CT:7& T7 T8* 4T8*&T:C:T7# T8* !B:!! #*$*R4I !R*+* C7RT $*C:!:7&!' 13

etitioner, in the ain, asserts that no.here in the respondents otions for re"onsideration and suppleentalotion for re"onsideration .ere the authenti"ity, a""ura"y and adissiility of the !.iss de"isions e%er "hallenged'7ther.ise stated, it .as in"orre"t for the !andiganayan to use the issue of la"k of authenti"ated translations of thede"isions of the !.iss #ederal !upree Court as the asis for re%ersing itself e"ause respondents thesel%es ne%erraised this issue in their otions for re"onsideration and suppleental otion for re"onsideration' #urtherore, this parti"ular issue relating to the translation of the !.iss "ourt de"isions "ould not e resurre"ted anyore e"ause saidde"isions had een pre%iously utili>ed y the !andiganayan itself in resol%ing a Ede"isi%e issueE efore it'

etitioner faults the !andiganayan for Duestioning the non


6/37

(/)

*?*& 4!!+:& T84T *T:T:7&*R B4! &7T I*4II /4RR*$ #R7+ #:I:& T8* +7T:7& #7R!++4R J$+*&T, T8* !4&$:4&/44& :! C7RR*CT :& RI:& T84T *T:T:7&*R 84! &7T*T *!T4/I:!8*$ 4 R:+4 #4C:* C4!* #7R T8* #7R#*:TR* 7# T8* !B:!! #&$!'

(1) Repuli" 4"t &o' 13-, the appli"ale la., is a penal statute' 4s su"h, its pro%isions, parti"ularly the essentialeleents stated in se"tion 3 thereof, are andatory in nature' These should e stri"tly "onstrued against petitionerand lierally in fa%or of pri%ate respondents'

(2) etitioner has failed to estalish the third and fourth essential eleents in !e"tion 3 of R'4' 13- .ith respe"t tothe identifi"ation, o.nership, and appro;iate aount of the property .hi"h the +ar"os "ouple allegedly Ea"Duiredduring their in"uen"yE '

(a) etitioner has failed to pro%e that the +ar"os "ouple Ea"DuiredE or o.n the !.iss funds'

() *%en assuing, for the sake of arguent, that the fa"t of a"Duisition has een pro%en, petitioner has "ategori"allyaditted that it has no e%iden"e sho.ing ho. u"h of the !.iss funds .as a"Duired Eduring the in"uen"yE of the+ar"os "ouple fro 31 $e"eer 1-65 to 25 #eruary 1-6'

(3) :n "ontra%ention of the essential eleent stated in !e"tion 3 (e) of R'4' 13-, petitioner has failed to estalish theother proper earnings and in"oe fro legitiately a"Duired property of the +ar"os "ouple o%er and ao%e theirgo%ernent salaries'

() !in"e petitioner failed to pro%e the three essential eleents pro%ided in paragraphs (") 15 (d) 16 and (e) 1 of!e"tion 3, R'4' 13-, the ines"apale "on"lusion is that the pria fa"ie presuption of unla.ful a"Duisition of the!.iss funds has not yet atta"hed' There "an, therefore, e no preature forfeiture of the funds'

(C)

:T B4! 7&I / 4R/:TR4R:I :!7I4T:& 4&$ T8*& T4:& C*RT4:& !T4T*+*&T! +4$* /R:?4T* R*!7&$*&T! 7T 7# C7&T*AT T84T *T:T:7&*R B4! 4/I* T7 TR*4T T8*!* 4!EJ$:C:4I 4$+:!!:7&!E !##:C:*&T T7 *!T4/I:!8 4 R:+4 #4C:* 4&$ T8*R*4#T*R 4

C7&CI!:?* C4!* T7 J!T:# T8* #7R#*:TR* 7# T8* !B:!! #&$!'

(1) nder !e"tion 2, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the eneral and !uppleental 4greeents, as .ell as theother .ritten and testionial stateents suitted in relation thereto, are e;pressly arred fro eing adissile ine%iden"e against pri%ate respondents'

(2) 8ad petitioner othered to .eigh the alleged adissions together .ith the other stateents on re"ord, there.ould e a deonstrale sho.ing that no su"h MFudi"ial adissionsN .ere ade y pri%ate respondents'

($)

!:&C* *T:T:7&*R 84! &7T (*T) R7?*& 4II T8* *!!*&T:4I *I*+*&T! T7 *!T4/I:!8 4R:+4 #4C:* C4!* #7R #7R#*:TR*, 4&$ R:?4T* R*!7&$*&T! 84?* &7T +4$* 4&

J$:C:4I 4$+:!!:7& T84T B7I$ 84?* #R**$ :T #R7+ :T! /R$*& 7# R77#, T8*!4&$:4&/44& $:$ &7T C7++:T R4?* 4/!* 7# $:!CR*T:7& :& $*&:& T8* +7T:7& #7R !++4R J$+*&T' C*RT:7R4R:, T8*R*#7R*, $7*! &7T I:*, *!*C:4II 4! T8:! C7RT :! &7T 4 TR:*R 7# #4CT!' 1

#or her part, +rs' 4raneta, in her "oent to the petition, "lais that o%iously petitioner is unale to "oply .itha %ery plain reDuireent of respondent !andiganayan' The instant petition is allegedly an attept to ele%ate to thisCourt atters, issues and in"idents .hi"h should e properly threshed out at the !andiganayan' To respondent +rs'4raneta, all other atters, sa%e that pertaining to the authenti"ation of the translated !.iss Court de"isions, areirrele%ant and ipertinent as far as this Court is "on"erned' Respondent +rs' 4raneta anifests that she is as eager

Page 6 of 37


7/37

as respondent !andiganayan or any interested person to ha%e the !.iss Court de"isions offi"ially translated in ourkno.n language' !he says the authenti"ated offi"ial *nglish %ersion of the !.iss Court de"isions should e presented' This should stop all spe"ulations on .hat indeed is "ontained therein' Thus, respondent +rs' 4raneta prays that the petition e denied for la"k of erit and for raising atters .hi"h, in elaorated fashion, areipertinent and iproper efore this Court'"hanro1es %irtua1 1a. 1irary

R7R:*T 7# *T:T:7&*R!

4CT:7& #7R C*RT:7R4R:

/ut efore this Court dis"usses the ore rele%ant issues, the Duestion regarding the propriety of petitionerRepuli"s a"tion for certiorari under Rule 65 1- of the 1-- Rules of Ci%il ro"edure assailing the !andiganayanResolution dated January 21, 2002 should e threshed out'

4t the outset, .e .ould like to stress that .e are treating this "ase as an e;"eption to the general rule go%erning petitions for certiorari' &orally, de"isions of the !andiganayan are rought efore this Court under Rule 5, notRule 65' 20 /ut .here the "ase is undenialy ingrained .ith iense puli" interest, puli" poli"y and deephistori"al reper"ussions, certiorari is allo.ed not.ithstanding the e;isten"e and a%ailaility of the reedy of appeal'21

7ne of the foreost "on"erns of the 4Duino o%ernent in #eruary 1-6 .as the re"o%ery of the une;plained orill


8/37


9/37


10/37

return as E+is"ellaneous :tesE and E?arious Corporations'E There is no indi"ation of any payor of the di%idends orearnings'

1-' !pouses #erdinand and :elda did not de"lare any in"oe fro any deposits and pla"eents .hi"h are suFe"tto a 5H .ithholding ta;' The /ureau of :nternal Re%enue attested that after a diligent sear"h of pertinent re"ords onfile .ith the Re"ords $i%ision, they did not find any re"ords in%ol%ing the ta; transa"tions of spouses #erdinand and:elda in Re%enue Region &o' 1, /aguio City, Re%enue Region &o' 4, +anila, Re%enue Region &o' /1, Lue>onCity and Re%enue &o' , Ta"loan, Ieyte' Iike.ise, the 7ffi"e of the Re%enue Colle"tor of /ata"' #urther, /:Rattested that no re"ords .ere found on any filing of "apital gains ta; return in%ol%ing spouses #+ and :elda"o%ering the years 1-60 to 1-65'

20' :n !"hedule /, the ta;ale reported in"oe o%er the t.entyerland and hid the sae under layers upon layers of foundations andother "orporate entities to pre%ent its dete"tion' Through their duies9noinees, fronts or agents .ho foredthose foundations or "orporate entities, they opened and aintained nuerous ank a""ounts' /ut due to thediffi"ulty if not the ipossiility of dete"ting and do"uenting all those se"ret a""ounts as .ell as the enority ofthe deposits therein hidden, the follo.ing presentation is "onfined to fi%e identified a""ounts groups, .ith alan"esaounting to aout 356


11/37

first and sole enefi"iary' This .as re"orded on $e"eer 1, 1-1'

25' :n an undated instruent, +ar"os "hanged the first and sole enefi"iary to C84R:! #7&$4T:7&' This"hange .as re"orded on $e"eer , 1-2'

26' 7n 4ugust 2-, 1-, the 4G:7 #7&$4T:7& .as renaed to ?*R!7 #7&$4T:7&' The /oard of Trusteesreained the sae' 7n +ar"h 11, 1-1, +ar"os issued a .ritten dire"ti%e to liDuidated ?*R!7 #7&$4T:7& andto transfer all its assets to a""ount of #:$*! TR!T C7+4& at /ank 8ofan in Guri"h under the a""ountEReferen"e 7!*R'E The /oard of Trustees de"ided to dissol%e the foundation on June 25, 1-1'

2' :n an apparent aneu%er to ury further the se"ret deposits eneath the thi"k layers of "orporate entities, #+effe"ted the estalishent of ?:/R #7&$4T:7& on +ay 13, 1-1 in ?adu>' 4tty' :%o /e"k and Iiag+anageent, a .hollye order issued y the !.iss authorities' 7ne of the latest do"uents otained ythe C fro the !.iss authorities is a de"laration signed y $r' :%o /e"k (the trustee) stating that the enefi"ialo.ner of ?:/R #7&$4T:7& is #erdinand *' +ar"os' 4nother do"uent signed y ' Raer of !4 sho.sthat ?:/R #7&$4T:7& is o.ned y the E+ar"os #ailieE '

30' 4s of $e"eer 31, 1--, the alan"e of the ank a""ounts of ?:/R #7&$4T:7& .ith !4, Guri"h, under the eneral 4""ount &o' 6-5 totaled 3,5-,5'00'

:' A4&$?4I4+7

#7&$4T:7& 4CC7&T!

31' This is the ost intri"ate and "opli"ated a""ount group' 4s the #lo. Chart hereof sho.s, t.o (2) groups underthe foundation organi>ed y +ar"os duies9noinees for #+s enefit, e%entually Foined together and e"aeone (1) a""ount group under the 4?*RT:&4 #7&$4T:7& for the enefit of oth #+ and :elda' This is the iggest group fro .here the 50


12/37

!"heller .ere naed as eers of the /oard of Trustees'

3' #+ and :elda issued the .ritten andate to estalish the foundation to +arkus eel of !4 on +ar"h 3, 1-0':n the hand.ritten Regulations signed y the +ar"os "ouple as .ell as in the type


13/37

1-2 .ith the safe deposit slips of the 4%ertina #oundation Category C4R as of 4ugust 1-, 1-2 sho.s that all these"urities of !pinus .ere transferred to 4%ertina'

J' TR:&:$4$ .ith #essler, !"heller and Ritter as eers ofthe oard of dire"tors' :elda issued a .ritten andate to $r' Theo /ertheau to estalish the foundation .ith a notethat the foundations "apitali>ation as .ell as the "ost of estalishing it e deited against the a""ount of Trinidad#oundation' :elda .as naed the first and only enefi"iary of Rayy foundation' 4""ording to .ritten inforationfro !4 dated &o%eer 2, 1-, :elda apparently had the intention in 1-3 to transfer part of the assets ofTrinidad #oundation to another foundation, thus the estalishent of Rayy #oundation' 8o.e%er, transfer of assetsne%er took pla"e' 7n +ar"h 10, 1-1, :elda issued a .ritten order to transfer all the assets of Rayy #oundation to

Trinidad #oundation and to suseDuently liDuidate Rayy' 7n the sae date, she issued a .ritten order to the oardof Trinidad to dissol%e the foundation and transfer all its assets to /ank 8ofann in fa%or of #ides Trust Co' nderthe a""ount EReferen"e $ido,E Rayy .as dissol%ed on 4pril 6, 1-1 and Trinidad .as liDuidated on 4ugust 3,1-1'

' The 4I+ #7&$4T:7& .as estalished on +ay 13, 1-1 in ?adu> .ith $r' :%o /e"k and Iiag+anageent, a .holly


14/37

Corporation 4""ount &o' 53300'

4s of 4ugust 30, 1--1, the ending alan"e of 4""ount &o' 53300 aounted to 0,566,3'00'

I' +4I*R #7&$4T:7& 4CC7&T!

-' +aler .as first "reated as an estalishent' 4 stateent of its rules and regulations .as found aong+ala"aOang do"uents' :t stated, aong others, that 50H of the Copanys assets .ill e for sole and full rightdisposal of #+ and :elda during their lifetie, .hi"h the reaining 50H .ill e di%ided in eDual parts aongtheir "hildren' 4nother +ala"aOang do"uent dated 7"toer 1-, 1-6 and signed y #erdinand and :elda pertainsto the appointent of $r' 4ndre /arey and Jean Iouis !unier as attorneys of the "opany and as adinistrator andanager of all assets held y the "opany' The +ar"os "ouple, also entioned in the said do"uent that they ought the +aler *stalishent fro !/C, ene%a' 7n the sae date, #+ and :elda issued a letter addressed to+aler *stalishent, stating that all instru"tions to e transitted .ith regard to +aler .ill e signed .ith the .ordEJ78& I*B:!'E This .ord .ill ha%e the sae %alue as the "ouples o.n personal signature' The letter .as signed y #+ and :elda in their signatures and as John Ie.is'

50' +aler *stalishent opened and aintained ank a""ounts .ith !/C, ene%a' The opening ank do"uents.ere signed y $r' /arey and +r' !unnier as authori>ed signatories'

51' 7n &o%eer 1, 1-1, it e"ae ne"essary to transfor +aler *stalishent into a foundation' Iike.ise, theattorneys .ere "hanged to +i"hael 4audru>, *t' 4l' 8o.e%er, adinistration of the assets .as left to !/C' Thearti"les of in"orporation of +aler #oundation registered on &o%eer 1, 1-1 appear to e the sae arti"lesapplied to +aler *stalishent' 7n #eruary 2, 1-, +aler #oundation "an"elled the po.er of attorney for theanageent of its assets in fa%or of !/C and transferred su"h po.er to !ustrust :n%estent Co', !'4'

52' 4s of June 6, 1--1, the ending alan"e of +aler #oundations 4""ount &os' 25,50 /T and -,-2- & aount!# -,03,56 and ! 16,1-5,25, respe"ti%ely, for a total of !# 25,2,25'00' + only until $e"eer 31, 1-0'This a""ount .as opened y +aler .hen it .as still an estalishent .hi"h .as suseDuently transfored into afoundation'

53' 4ll the fi%e (5) group a""ounts in the o%er


15/37

e;a"tly the truth as to the atters alleged'

12' Respondents spe"ifi"ally $*& paragraph 13 of the etition for la"k of kno.ledge or inforation suffi"ient tofor a elief as to the truth of the allegation sin"e Respondents "annot reeer .ith e;a"titude the "ontents of thealleged :TRs and /alan"e !heet'

13' Respondents spe"ifi"ally $*& paragraph 1 of the etition for la"k of kno.ledge or inforation suffi"ient tofor a elief as to the truth of the allegation sin"e Respondents "annot reeer .ith e;a"titude the "ontents of thealleged :TRs'



16' Respondents spe"ifi"ally $*& paragraph 1 of the etition insofar as it attriutes .illful dupli"ity on the partof the late resident +ar"os, for eing false, the sae eing pure "on"lusions ased on pure assuption and not

allegations of fa"t@ and spe"ifi"ally $*& the rest for la"k of kno.ledge or inforation suffi"ient to for a elief asto the truth of the allegation sin"e Respondents "annot reeer .ith e;a"titude the "ontents of the alleged :TRs orthe atta"hents thereto'


1' Respondents spe"ifi"ally $*& paragraph 1- of the etition for la"k of kno.ledge or inforation suffi"ient tofor a elief as to the truth of the allegation sin"e Respondents "annot reeer .ith e;a"titude the "ontents of thealleged :TRs and that they are not pri%y to the a"ti%ities of the /:R'

1-' Respondents spe"ifi"ally $*& paragraph 20 of the etition for la"k of kno.ledge or inforation suffi"ient to

for a elief as to the truth of the allegation sin"e Respondents "annot reeer .ith e;a"titude the "ontents of thealleged :TRs'



22' Respondents spe"ifi"ally $*& paragraph 23 insofar as it alleges that Respondents "landestinely stashed the"ountrys .ealth in !.it>erland and hid the sae under layers and layers of foundation and "orporate entities for

eing false, the truth eing that Respondents aforesaid properties .ere la.fully a"Duired'

23' Respondents spe"ifi"ally $*& paragraphs 2, 25, 26, 2, 2, 2- and 30 of the etition for la"k of kno.ledgeor inforation suffi"ient to for a elief as to the truth of the allegation sin"e Respondents .ere not pri%y to thetransa"tions regarding the alleged 4>io


16/37

sae ha%ing o""urred a long tie ago, e;"ept that as to Respondent :elda R' +ar"os she spe"ifi"ally reeersthat the funds in%ol%ed .ere la.fully a"Duired'

25' Respondents spe"ifi"ally $*& paragraphs 2, 3, , 5, and 6, of the etition for la"k of kno.ledge orinforation suffi"ient to for a elief as to the truth of the allegations sin"e Respondents .ere not pri%y to thetransa"tions and as to su"h transa"tion they .ere pri%y to they "annot reeer .ith e;a"titude the sae ha%ingo""urred a long tie ago, e;"ept that as to Respondent :elda R' +ar"os she spe"ifi"ally reeers that the fundsin%ol%ed .ere la.fully a"Duired'

26' Respondents spe"ifi"ally $*& paragraphs -, 50, 51 and 52, of the etition for la"k of kno.ledge orinforation suffi"ient to for a elief as to the truth of the allegations sin"e Respondents .ere not pri%y to thetransa"tions and as to su"h transa"tion they .ere pri%y to they "annot reeer .ith e;a"titude the sae ha%ingo""urred a long tie ago, e;"ept that as to Respondent :elda R' +ar"os she spe"ifi"ally reeers that the fundsin%ol%ed .ere la.fully a"Duired'

pon "areful perusal of the foregoing, the Court finds that respondent +rs' +ar"os and the +ar"os "hildreninduitaly failed to tender genuine issues in their ans.er to the petition for forfeiture' 4 genuine issue is an issue of fa"t .hi"h "alls for the presentation of e%iden"e as distinguished fro an issue .hi"h is fi"titious and "ontri%ed, setup in ad faith or patently la"king in sustan"e so as not to "onstitute a genuine issue for trial' Respondentsdefenses of Ela"k of kno.ledge for la"k of pri%ityE orE (inaility to) re"all e"ause it happened a long tie agoE or,

on the part of +rs' +ar"os, that Ethe funds .ere la.fully a"DuiredE are fully insuffi"ient to tender genuine issues'Respondent +ar"oses defenses .ere a sha and e%idently "alirated to "opound and "onfuse the issues'

The follo.ing pleadings filed y respondent +ar"oses are replete .ith indi"ations of a spurious defense="hanro1es%irtual 1a. lirary

(a) Respondents 4ns.er dated 7"toer 1, 1--3@

() re


17/37

!e"tion 10, Rule of the 1-- Rules of Ci%il ro"edure, pro%ides="hanro1es %irtual 1a. lirary

4 defendant ust spe"ify ea"h aterial allegation of fa"t the truth of .hi"h he does not adit and, .hene%er pra"ti"ale, shall set forth the sustan"e of the atters upon .hi"h he relies to support his denial' Bhere a defendantdesires to deny only a part of an a%erent, he shall spe"ify so u"h of it as is true and aterial and shall deny thereainder' Bhere a defendant is .ithout kno.ledge or inforation suffi"ient to for a elief as to the truth of aaterial a%erent ade in the "oplaint, he shall so state, and this shall ha%e the effe"t of a denial' 2

The purpose of reDuiring respondents to ake a spe"ifi" denial is to ake the dis"lose fa"ts .hi"h .ill dispro%ethe allegations of petitioner at the trial, together .ith the atters they rely upon in support of su"h denial' 7ur Furisdi"tion adheres to this rule to a%oid and pre%ent unne"essary e;penses and .aste of tie y "opelling oth parties to lay their "ards on the tale, thus redu"ing the "ontro%ersy to its true ters' 4s e;plained in 4lonso %'?illaor, 2-

4 litigation is not a gae of te"hni"alities in .hi"h one, ore deeply s"hooled and skilled in the sutle art ofo%eent and position, entraps and destroys the other' :t is rather a "ontest in .hi"h ea"h "ontending party fullyand fairly lays efore the "ourt the fa"ts in issue and then, rushing aside as .holly tri%ial and inde"isi%e alliperfe"tions of for and te"hni"alities of pro"edure, asks that Fusti"e e done upon the erits' Ia.suits, unlikeduels, are not to e .on y a rapiers thrust'

7n the part of +rs' +ar"os, she "laied that the funds .ere la.fully a"Duired' 8o.e%er, she failed to parti"ularlystate the ultiate fa"ts surrounding the la.ful anner or ode of a"Duisition of the suFe"t funds' !iply put, sheerely stated in her ans.er .ith the other respondents that the funds .ere Ela.fully a"DuiredE .ithout detailingho. e;a"tly these funds .ere supposedly a"Duired legally y the' *%en in this "ase efore us, her assertion that thefunds .ere la.fully a"Duired reains are and una""opanied y any fa"tual support .hi"h "an pro%e, y the presentation of e%iden"e at a hearing, that indeed the funds .ere a"Duired legitiately y the +ar"os faily'

Respondents denials in their ans.er at the !andiganayan .ere ased on their alleged la"k of kno.ledge orinforation suffi"ient to for a elief as to the truth of the allegations of the petition'

:t is true that one of the odes of spe"ifi" denial under the rules is a denial through a stateent that the defendant is.ithout kno.ledge or inforation suffi"ient to for a elief as to the truth of the aterial a%erent in the

"oplaint' The Duestion, ho.e%er, is .hether the kind of denial in respondents ans.er Dualifies as the spe"ifi"denial "alled for y the rules' Be do not think so' :n +orales %' Court of 4ppeals, 30 this Court ruled that if anallegation dire"tly and spe"ifi"ally "harges a party .ith ha%ing done, perfored or "oitted a parti"ular a"t .hi"hthe latter did not in fa"t do, perfor or "oit, a "ategori"al and e;press denial ust e ade'

8ere, despite the serious and spe"ifi" allegations against the, the +ar"oses responded y siply saying that theyhad no kno.ledge or inforation suffi"ient to for a elief as to the truth of su"h allegations' !u"h a general, self<ser%ing "lai of ignoran"e of the fa"ts alleged in the petition for forfeiture .as insuffi"ient to raise an issue'Respondent +ar"oses should ha%e positi%ely stated ho. it .as that they .ere supposedly ignorant of the fa"tsalleged' 31

To elu"idate, the allegation of petitioner Repuli" in paragraph 23 of the petition for forfeiture stated="hanro1es%irtual 1a. lirary

23' The follo.ing presentation %ery "learly and o%er.helingly sho. in detail ho. oth respondents "landestinelystashed a.ay the "ountrys .ealth to !.it>erland and hid the sae under layers upon layers of foundations andother "orporate entities to pre%ent its dete"tion' Through their duies9noinees, fronts or agents .ho foredthose foundations or "orporate entities, they opened and aintained nuerous ank a""ounts' /ut due to thediffi"ulty if not the ipossiility of dete"ting and do"uenting all those se"ret a""ounts as .ell as the enority ofthe deposits therein hidden, the follo.ing presentation is "onfined to fi%e identified a""ounts groups, .ith alan"esaounting to aout 356


18/37

Respondents lae denial of the aforesaid allegation .as="hanro1es %irtual 1a. lirary

22' Respondents spe"ifi"ally $*& paragraph 23 insofar as it alleges that Respondents "landestinely stashed the"ountrys .ealth in !.it>erland and hid the sae under layers and layers of foundations and "orporate entities for eing false, the truth eing that Respondents aforesaid properties .ere la.fully a"Duired' 33

*%idently, this parti"ular denial had the earark of .hat is "alled in the la. on pleadings as a negati%e pregnant, thatis, a denial pregnant .ith the adission of the sustantial fa"ts in the pleading responded to .hi"h are not sDuarelydenied' :t .as in effe"t an adission of the a%erents it .as dire"ted at' 3 !tated other.ise, a negati%e pregnant isa for of negati%e e;pression .hi"h "arries .ith it an affiration or at least an ipli"ation of soe kind fa%oraleto the ad%erse party' :t is a denial pregnant .ith an adission of the sustantial fa"ts alleged in the pleading' Bherea fa"t is alleged .ith Dualifying or odifying language and the .ords of the allegation as so Dualified or odifiedare literally denied, it has een held that the Dualifying "ir"ustan"es alone are denied .hile the fa"t itself isaditted' 35

:n the instant "ase, the aterial allegations in paragraph 23 of the said petition .ere not spe"ifi"ally denied yrespondents in paragraph 22 of their ans.er' The denial "ontained in paragraph 22 of the ans.er .as fo"used on thea%erent in paragraph 23 of the petition for forfeiture that ERespondents "landestinely stashed the "ountrys .ealthin !.it>erland and hid the sae under layers and layers of foundations and "orporate entities'E aragraph 22 of therespondents ans.er .as thus a denial pregnant .ith adissions of the follo.ing sustantial fa"ts="hanro1es %irtual

1a. lirary

(1) that the !.iss ank deposits e;isted and

(2) that the estiated su thereof .as !356 illion as of $e"eer, 1--0'

Therefore, the allegations in the petition for forfeiture on the e;isten"e of the !.iss ank deposits in the su ofaout !356 illion, not ha%ing een spe"ifi"ally denied y respondents in their ans.er, .ere deeed aditted ythe pursuant to !e"tion 11, Rule of the 1-- Re%ised Rules on Ci%il ro"edure="hanro1es %irtual 1a. lirary

+aterial a%erent in the "oplaint, ' ' ' shall e deeed aditted .hen not spe"ifi"ally denied' ' ' ' 36

/y the sae token, the follo.ing unsupported denials of respondents in their ans.er .ere pregnant .ith adissions

of the sustantial fa"ts alleged in the Repuli"s petition for forfeiture="hanro1es %irtual 1a. lirary

23' Respondents spe"ifi"ally $*& paragraphs 2, 25, 26, 2, 2, 2- and 30 of the etition for la"k of kno.ledgeor inforation suffi"ient to for a elief as to the truth of the allegation sin"e respondents .ere not pri%y to thetransa"tions regarding the alleged 4>io


19/37

in%ol%ed .ere la.fully a"Duired'

The atters referred to in paragraphs 23 to 26 of the respondents ans.er pertained to the "reation of fi%e groups ofa""ounts as .ell as their respe"ti%e ending alan"es and atta"hed do"uents alleged in paragraphs 2 to 52 of theRepuli"s petition for forfeiture' Respondent :elda R' +ar"os ne%er spe"ifi"ally denied the e;isten"e of the !.issfunds' 8er "lai that Ethe funds in%ol%ed .ere la.fully a"DuiredE .as an a"kno.ledgent on her part of thee;isten"e of said deposits' This only reinfor"ed her earlier adission of the allegation in paragraph 23 of the petitionfor forfeiture regarding the e;isten"e of the !356 illion !.iss ank deposits'"hanro1es %irtua1 1a. 1irary

The allegations in paragraphs 3 and 3 of the petition for forfeiture referring to the "reation and aount ofthe deposits of the Rosalys


20/37

The for of denial adopted y respondents ust e a%ailed of .ith sin"erity and in good faith, and "ertainly not forthe purpose of "onfusing the ad%erse party as to .hat allegations of the petition are really eing "hallenged@ norshould it e ade for the purpose of delay' 6 :n the instant "ase, the +ar"oses did not only present unsustantiatedassertions ut in truth attepted to islead and de"ei%e this Court y presenting an o%iously "ontri%ed defense'

!iply put, a profession of ignoran"e aout a fa"t .hi"h is patently and ne"essarily .ithin the pleaders kno.ledgeor eans of kno.ing is as ineffe"ti%e as no denial at all' Respondents ineffe"ti%e denial thus failed to properlytender an issue and the a%erents "ontained in the petition for forfeiture .ere deeed Fudi"ially aditted y the'

4s held in J'' Juan U !ons, :n"' %' Iianga :ndustries, :n"'="hanro1es %irtual 1a. lirary

:ts Espe"ifi" denialE of the aterial allegation of the petition .ithout setting forth the sustan"e of the atters reliedupon to support its general denial, .hen su"h atters .ere plainly .ithin its kno.ledge and it "ould not logi"ally pretend ignoran"e as to the sae, therefore, failed to properly tender on issue'

Thus, the general denial of the +ar"os "hildren of the allegations in the petition for forfeiture Efor la"k of kno.ledgeor inforation suffi"ient to for a elief as to the truth of the allegations sin"e they .ere not pri%y to thetransa"tionsE "annot rightfully e a""epted as a defense e"ause they are the legal heirs and su""essors


21/37

B:T&*!!*!

'1 Respondent :elda .ill present herself as a .itness and reser%es the right to present additional .itnesses as ay e ne"essary in the "ourse of the trial'

x x x

$7C+*&T4R *?:$*&C*

5'1 Respondent :elda reser%es the right to present and introdu"e in e%iden"e do"uents as ay e ne"essary in the"ourse of the trial'

+rs' +ar"os did not enuerate and des"rie the do"uents "onstituting her e%iden"e' &either the naes of.itnesses nor the nature of their testiony .as stated' Bhat alone appeared "ertain .as the testiony of +rs'+ar"os only .ho in fa"t had pre%iously "laied ignoran"e and la"k of kno.ledge' 4nd e%en then, the sustan"e ofher testiony, as reDuired y the rules, .as not ade kno.n either' !u"h "unning ta"ti"s of respondents are totallyuna""eptale to this Court' Be hold that, sin"e no genuine issue .as raised, the "ase e"ae ripe for suary

Fudgent'

Q 7pposition to +otion for !uary Judgent dated +ar"h 21, 2000

The opposition filed y +rs' +ar"os to the otion for suary Fudgent dated +ar"h 21, 2000 of petitionerRepuli" .as erely adopted y the +ar"os "hildren as their o.n opposition to the said otion' 8o.e%er, it .asagain not a""opanied y affida%its, depositions or adissions as reDuired y !e"tion 3, Rule 35 of the 1-- Ruleson Ci%il ro"edure="hanro1es %irtual 1a. lirary

' ' ' The ad%erse party ay ser%e opposing affida%its, depositions, or adissions at least three (3) days eforehearing' 4fter hearing, the Fudgent sought shall e rendered forth.ith if the pleadings, supporting affida%its,depositions, and adissions on file, sho. that, e;"ept as to the aount of daages, there is no genuine issue as toany aterial fa"t and that the o%ing party is entitled to a Fudgent as a atter of la.' 51

The asen"e of opposing affida%its, depositions and adissions to "ontradi"t the s.orn de"larations in theRepuli"s otion only deonstrated that the a%erents of su"h opposition .ere not genuine and thereforeun.orthy of elief'

Q $eurrer to *%iden"e dated +ay 2, 2000@ 52 +otions for Re"onsideration@ 53 and +eoranda of +rs' +ar"osand the +ar"os Children 5

4ll these pleadings again "ontained no allegations of fa"ts sho.ing their la.ful a"Duisition of the funds' 7n"e ore,respondents erely ade general denials .ithout alleging fa"ts .hi"h .ould ha%e een adissile in e%iden"e atthe hearing, therey failing to raise genuine issues of fa"t'

+rs' +ar"os insists in her eorandu dated 7"toer 21, 2002 that, during the pre


22/37

#oundations do not elong to the estate of +ar"os or to :elda +ar"os herself' Thats your stateent of fa"ts

4tty' +4RC*I7="hanro1es %irtual 1a. lirary

es, our 8onor'

J ar"hitorena="hanro1es %irtual 1a. lirary

Thats it' 7kay' Counsel for +anoto" and #erdinand, Jr' Bhat is your point here $oes the estate of +ar"os o.nanything of the 360 illion suFe"t of this "ase'

4tty' T*C!7&="hanro1es %irtual 1a. lirary

Be Foined the +anifestation of Counsel'


ou do not o.n anything

4tty' T*C!7&="hanro1es %irtual 1a. lirary

es, our 8onor'


Counsel for :rene 4raneta

4tty' !:!7&="hanro1es %irtual 1a. lirary

: Foin the position taken y y other "opaOeros here, our 8onor'

x x x

4tty' !:!7&="hanro1es %irtual 1a. lirary

:rene 4raneta as heir do (si") not o.n any of the aount, our 8onor' 55

Be are "on%in"ed that the strategy of respondent +ar"oses .as to "onfuse petitioner Repuli" as to .hat fa"ts they.ould pro%e or .hat issues they intended to pose for the "ourts resolution' There is no dout in our ind that they.ere leading petitioner Repuli", and no. this Court, to perple;ity, if not trying to drag this forfeiture "ase toeternity'

Q +anifestation dated +ay 26, 1-- filed y +rs' +ar"os@ eneral9!uppleental Coproise 4greeent dated$e"eer 2, 1--3

These pleadings of respondent +ar"oses presented nothing ut feigned defenses' :n their earlier pleadings,respondents alleged either that they had no kno.ledge of the e;isten"e of the !.iss deposits or that they "ould nolonger reeer anything as it happened a long tie ago' 4s to +rs' +ar"os, she reeered that it .as la.fullya"Duired'

:n her +anifestation dated +ay 26, 1--, +rs' +ar"os stated that="hanro1es %irtual 1a. lirary

C7+*! &7B undersigned "ounsel for respondent :elda R' +ar"os, and efore this 8onorale Court, ostrespe"tfully anifests="hanro1es %irtual 1a. lirary

Page 22 of 37


23/37


24/37

!in"e 1--1, .hen the petition for forfeiture .as first filed, up to the present, all respondents ha%e offered are fo;yresponses like Ela"k of suffi"ient kno.ledge or la"k of pri%ityE or Ethey "annot re"all e"ause it happened a longtie agoE or, as to +rs' +ar"os, Ethe funds .ere la.fully a"Duired'E /ut, .hene%er it suits the, they also "laio.nership of -0H of the funds and allege that only 10H elongs to the +ar"os estate' :t has een an in"redile"harade fro eginning to end'

:n the hope of "on%in"ing this Court to rule other.ise, respondents +aria :elda +ar"os


25/37

nder the &e. ork rule, after the issues ha%e een Foined, the otion for suary Fudgent ay e ade at anystage of the litigation' 4nd .hat e;a"tly does the phrase Eat any stage of the litigationE ean :n *"ker %' +u>ysh,65 the &e. ork !upree Court ruled= Fg"="hanroles'"o'ph

E*R CR:4+'

laintiff introdu"ed her e%iden"e and the defendants rested on the "ase ade y the plaintiff' The "ase .assuitted' 7.ing to the serious illness of the trial Fusti"e, a de"ision .as not rendered .ithin si;ty days after thefinal adFournent of the ter at .hi"h the "ase .as tried' Bith the appro%al of the trial Fusti"e, the plaintiff o%edfor a ne. trial under !e"tion 2 of the Ci%il ra"ti"e 4"t' The plaintiff also o%ed for suary Fudgent underRule 113 of the Rules of Ci%il ra"ti"e' The otion .as opposed ainly on the ground that, y pro"eeding to trial,the plaintiff had .ai%ed her right to suary Fudgent and that the ans.er and the opposing affida%its raised trialeissues' The aount due and unpaid under the "ontra"t is not in dispute' The !pe"ial Ter granted oth otions andthe defendants ha%e appealed'

The !pe"ial Ter properly held that the ans.er and the opposing affida%its raised no triale issue' Rule 113 of theRules of Ci%il ra"ti"e and the Ci%il ra"ti"e 4"t pres"rie no liitation as to the tie .hen a otion for suary Fudgent ust e ade' The oFe"t of Rule 113 is to epo.er the "ourt to suarily deterine .hether or not a ona fide issue e;ists et.een the parties, and there is no liitation on the po.er of the "ourt to ake su"h adeterination at any stage of the litigation'E ( Emphasis ours)

7n the asis of the aforeDuoted disDuisition, Eany stage of the litigationE eans that Ee%en if the plaintiff has pro"eeded to trial, this does not pre"lude hi fro thereafter o%ing for suary Fudgent'E 66

:n the "ase at ar, petitioner o%ed for suary Fudgent after pre


26/37

This interpretation "onfors .ith the guiding prin"iple enshrined in !e"tion 6, Rule 1 of the 1-- Rules of Ci%ilro"edure that theE rSules should e lierally "onstrued in order to proote their oFe"ti%e of se"uring a Fust, speedyand ine;pensi%e disposition of e%ery a"tion and pro"eeding'E 6-

Respondents further allege that the otion for suary Fudgent .as ased on respondents ans.er and otherdo"uents that had long een in the re"ords of the "ase' Thus, y the tie the otion .as filed on +ar"h 10, 2000,estoppel y la"hes had already set in against petitioner'

Be disagree' *stoppel y la"hes is the failure or negle"t for an unreasonale or une;plained length of tie to do that.hi"h, y e;er"ising due diligen"e, "ould or should ha%e een done earlier, .arranting a presuption that the personhas aandoned his right or de"lined to assert it' 0 :n effe"t, therefore, the prin"iple of la"hes is one of estoppel e"ause Eit pre%ents people .ho ha%e slept on their rights fro preFudi"ing the rights of third parties .ho ha%e pla"ed relian"e on the ina"tion of the original parties and their su""essorsed that la"hes is not a ere Duestion of tie ut is prin"ipally a Duestion of theineDuity or unfairness of peritting a right or "lai to e enfor"ed or asserted' 5 *Duity deands that petitionerRepuli" should not e arred fro pursuing the peoples "ase against the +ar"oses'"hanro1es %irtua1 1a. 1irary

(2) T8* R7R:*T 7# #7R#*:TR*

The atter of suary Fudgent ha%ing een thus settled, the issue of .hether or not petitioner Repuli" .as aleto pro%e its "ase for forfeiture in a""ordan"e .ith the reDuisites of !e"tions 2 and 3 of R4 13- no. takes "enterstage'

The la. raises the pria fa"ie presuption that a property is unla.fully a"Duired, hen"e suFe"t to forfeiture, if itsaount or %alue is anifestly disproportionate to the offi"ial salary and other la.ful in"oe of the puli" offi"er.ho o.ns it' 8en"e, !e"tions 2 and 6 of R4 13- 6 pro%ide="hanro1es %irtual 1a. lirary

x x x

!e"tion 2' #iling of petition' K Bhene%er any puli" offi"er or eployee has a"Duired during his in"uen"y anaount or property .hi"h is anifestly out of proportion to his salary as su"h puli" offi"er or eployee and to his

Page 26 of 37


27/37

other la.ful in"oe and the in"oe fro legitiately a"Duired property, said property shall e presued priafa"ie to ha%e een unla.fully a"Duired'

x x x

!e"' 6' Judgent' K :f the respondent is unale to sho. to the satisfa"tion of the "ourt that he has la.fully a"Duiredthe property in Duestion, then the "ourt shall de"lare su"h property in Duestion, forfeited in fa%or of the !tate, and y%irtue of su"h Fudgent the property aforesaid shall e"oe the property of the !tate' ro%ided, That no Fudgentshall e rendered .ithin si; onths efore any general ele"tion or .ithin three onths efore any spe"ial ele"tion'The Court ay, in addition, refer this "ase to the "orresponding *;e"uti%e $epartent for adinistrati%e or "riinala"tion, or oth'

#ro the ao%e


28/37

Con%erted to '!' dollars on the asis of the "orresponding peso


29/37

in"oe, respondents should ha%e spe"ifi"ally stated the sae in their ans.er' :nsofar as petitioner Repuli" .as"on"erned, it .as enough to spe"ify the kno.n la.ful in"oe of respondents'

!e"tion - of the C Rules and Regulations pro%ides that, in deterining pria fa"ie e%iden"e of ill


30/37

.ere null and %oid' - They insist that nothing in those agreeents "ould thus e aditted in e%iden"e against the e"ause they stood on the sae ground as an a""epted offer .hi"h, under !e"tion 2, Rule 130 -0 of the 1-- Rulesof Ci%il ro"edure, pro%ides that Ein "i%il "ases, an offer of "oproise is not an adission of any liaility and isnot adissile in e%iden"e against the offeror'E"rala. %irtua1a. lirary

Be find no erit in this "ontention' The de"laration of nullity of said agreeents .as preised on the follo.ing"onstitutional and statutory infirities= (1) the grant of "riinal iunity to the +ar"os heirs .as against the la.@(2) the Cs "oitent to e;ept fro all fors of ta;es the properties to e retained y the +ar"os heirs .asagainst the Constitution@ and (3) the go%ernents undertaking to "ause the disissal of all "ases filed against the+ar"oses pending efore the !andiganayan and other "ourts en"roa"hed on the po.ers of the Fudi"iary' Thereasons relied upon y the Court ne%er in the least it e%en tou"hed on the %era"ity and truthfulness of respondentsadission .ith respe"t to their o.nership of the !.iss funds' /esides, ha%ing ade "ertain adissions in thoseagreeents, respondents "annot no. deny that they %oluntarily aditted o.ning the suFe"t !.iss funds,not.ithstanding the fa"t that the agreeents thesel%es .ere later de"lared null and %oid'

The follo.ing oser%ation of !andiganayan Justi"e Catalino CastaOeda, Jr' in the de"ision dated !epteer 1-,2000 "ould not ha%e een etter said="hanro1es %irtual 1a. lirary

' ' ' The de"laration of nullity of the t.o agreeents rendered the sae .ithout legal effe"ts ut it did not detra"tfro the adissions of the respondents "ontained therein' 7ther.ise stated, the adissions ade in said

agreeents, as Duoted ao%e, reain inding on the respondents' -1

4 .ritten stateent is nonetheless "opetent as an adission e%en if it is "ontained in a do"uent .hi"h is notitself effe"ti%e for the purpose for .hi"h it is ade, either y reason of illegality, or in"opeten"y of a party thereto,or y reason of not eing signed, e;e"uted or deli%ered' 4""ordingly, "ontra"ts ha%e een held as "opetente%iden"e of adissions, although they ay e unenfor"eale' -2

The testiony of respondent #erdinand +ar"os, Jr' during the hearing on the otion for the appro%al of theCoproise 4greeent on 4pril 2-, 1-- also lent "reden"e to the allegations of petitioner Repuli" thatrespondents aditted o.nership of the !.iss ank a""ounts' Be Duote the salient portions of #erdinand Jr's foralde"larations in open "ourt="hanro1es %irtual 1a. lirary

4TT' #*R&4&$7="hanro1es %irtual 1a. lirary

+r' +ar"os, did you e%er ha%e any eetings .ith C Chairan +agtanggol C' unigundo

#' +4RC7!, JR'="hanro1es %irtual 1a. lirary

es' : ha%e had %ery any eetings in fa"t .ith Chairan'


Bould you re"all .hen the first eeting o""urred

J 4RC8:T7R*&4="hanro1es %irtual 1a. lirary

:n "onne"tion .ith .hat


:n "onne"tion .ith the ongoing talks to "oproise the %arious "ases initiated y C against your faily

#' +4RC7!, JR'="hanro1es %irtual 1a. lirary

The nature of our eetings .as solely "on"erned .ith negotiations to.ards a"hie%ing soe kind of agreeent

Page 30 of 37


31/37


32/37

and uneDui%o"ally to a fa"t .hi"h is pe"uliarly .ithin his o.n kno.ledge' -

:n her +anifestation -- dated +ay 26, 1--, respondent :elda +ar"os furtherore re%ealed thefollo.ing="hanro1es %irtual 1a. lirary

That respondent :elda R' +ar"os o.ns -0H of the suFe"t atter of the ao%e


33/37

right o%er the "onsiderale dollar deposits' Truly, y filing said otion, the +ar"os "hildren re%ealed theiro.nership of the said deposits'

Iastly, the ndertaking 103 entered into y the C, the &/ and the +ar"os foundations on #eruary 10, 1---,"onfired the +ar"oses o.nership of the !.iss ank deposits' The suFe"t ndertaking rought to light theirreadiness to pay the huan rights %i"tis out of the funds held in es"ro. in the &/' :t stated="hanro1es %irtual1a. lirary

B8*R*4!, the Repuli" of the hilippines sypathi>es .ith the plight of the huan rights %i"tised the proofs presented y the parties' Be analy>ed, assessed and .eighed the to as"ertainif ea"h pie"e of e%iden"e rightfully Dualified as an adission' 7.ing to the far


34/37

Respondents insist that the !andiganayan is "orre"t in ruling that petitioner Repuli" has failed to estalish a priafa"ie "ase for the forfeiture of the !.iss deposits'

Be disagree' The sudden turn


35/37

Respondent +rs' +ar"os argues that the foreign foundations should ha%e een ipleaded as they .ereindispensale parties .ithout .ho no "oplete deterination of the issues "ould e ade' !he asserts that thefailure of petitioner Repuli" to iplead the foundations rendered the Fudgent %oid as the Foinder of indispensale parties .as a sine Dua non e;er"ise of Fudi"ial po.er' #urtherore, the noned .ith ill


36/37

not, .ithout ore, .arrant identifying the "orporations in Duestion .ith the person .ho fored or ade use of theto gi%e the "olor or appearan"e of la.ful, inno"ent a"Duisition to illegally aassed .ealth K at the least, not so as pla"e on the o%ernent the onus of ipleading the forer .ith the latter in a"tions to re"o%er su"h .ealth'$istinguished in ters of Furidi"al personality and legal "ulpaility fro their erring eers or sto"kholders, said"orporations are not thesel%es guilty of the sins of the latter, of the ee>>leent, asportation, et"', that ga%e riseto the o%ernents "ause of a"tion for re"o%ery@ their "reation or organi>ation .as erely the result of theireers (or sto"kholders) anipulations and aneu%ers to "on"eal the illegal origins of the assets or oniesin%ested therein' :n this light, they are siply the res in the a"tions for the re"o%ery of illegally a"Duired .ealth, andthere is, in prin"iple, no "ause of a"tion against the and no ground to iplead the as defendants in saida"tions'E"rala. %irtua1a. lirary

Just like the "orporations in the aforeentioned "ase, the foreign foundations here .ere set up to "on"eal theillegally a"Duired funds of the +ar"os spouses' Thus, they .ere siply the res in the a"tion for re"o%ery of ill


37/37

a"Duired the property in Duestion, then the "ourt shall de"lare su"h property forfeited in fa%or of the !tate, and y%irtue of su"h Fudgent the property aforesaid shall e"oe property of the !tate ' ' ' '

T8* #4:IR* T7 R*!*&T 4T8*&T:C4T*$

TR4&!I4T:7&! 7# T8* !B:!! $*C:!:7&!

#inally, petitioner Repuli" "ontends that the 8onorale !andiganayan residing Justi"e #ran"is ar"hitorena"oitted gra%e ause of dis"retion in re%ersing hiself on the ground that the original "opies of the authenti"ated!.iss de"isions and their authenti"ated translations .ere not suitted to the "ourt a Duo' *arlier J ar"hitorenahad Duoted e;tensi%ely fro the unoffi"ial translation of one of these !.iss de"isions in his ponen"ia dated July 2-,1--- .hen he denied the otion to release !150 +illion to the huan rights %i"tis'

Bhile .e are in reality perple;ed y su"h an in"oprehensile "hange of heart, there ight ne%ertheless not e anyreal need to elaor the issue' The presentation of the authenti"ated translations of the original "opies of the !.issde"ision .as not de rigueur for the puli" respondent to ake findings of fa"t and rea"h its "on"lusions' :n short, the!andiganayans de"ision .as not dependent on the deterination of the !.iss "ourts' #or that atter, neither is thisCourts'

The release of the !.iss funds held in es"ro. in the &/ is dependent solely on the de"ision of this Furisdi"tion that

said funds elong to the petitioner Repuli"' Bhat is iportant is our o.n assessent of the suffi"ien"y of thee%iden"e to rule in fa%or of either petitioner Repuli" or respondent +ar"oses' :n this instan"e, despite the asen"eof the authenti"ated translations of the !.iss de"isions, the e%iden"e on hand tilts "on%in"ingly in fa%or of petitioner Repuli"'

B8*R*#7R*, the petition is herey R4&T*$' The assailed Resolution of the !andiganayan dated January 31,2002 is !*T 4!:$*' The !.iss deposits .hi"h .ere transferred to and are no. deposited in es"ro. at thehilippine &ational /ank in the estiated aggregate aount of !65,15,33'60 as of January 31, 2002, plusinterest, are herey forfeited in fa%or of petitioner Repuli" of the hilippines'"hanro1es %irtua1 1a. 1irary

!7 7R$*R*$'

repubic vs marcos

Documents