republic v marcos-manotoc_fulltext

7/21/2019 Republic v Marcos-Manotoc_FullText

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/republic-v-marcos-manotocfulltext 1/24

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme CourtManila

SECOND DIVISION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Petitioner,

- versus

MA. IMELDA IMEE R. MARCOS-

MANOTOC, FERDINAND

BONGBONG R. MARCOS, JR.,

GREGORIO MA. ARANETA III,

IRENE R. MARCOS-ARANETA,

EUNG CHUN FAN, EUNG CHUN

HO, EUNG CHUN !AM, "#$

PANTRANCO EMPLOEES

ASSOCIATION %PEA&-PTG'O,

Respondents.

G. R. No. ()()*(

Present:

BRION, J .,∗

Acting hairperson,

!I""ARAMA, #R.,∗∗

P$R$%,&$R$NO, and

R$'$&, JJ.

Pro(ulgated:

)ebruar* +,

+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +

D E C I S I O N

SERENO, J.:

Before this ourt is a Petition for Revie/ filed b* the Republic of the Philippines

assailing the Resolutions01 issued b* the &andiganba*an in connection /ith an alleged

portion of the Marcoses supposed ill-gotten /ealth.

2his case involves P billion of the Marcoses alleged accu(ulated ill-gotten

/ealth. It also includes the alleged use of the (edia net/or3s IB-4, BB- and RPN-

5 for the Marcos fa(il*s personal benefit6 the alleged use of 7e &oleil Apparel for dollar

salting6 and the alleged illegal ac8uisition and operation of the bus co(pan* Pantranco

North $9press, Inc. Pantranco;.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/171701.htm#_ftn1








Te F"t

After the $7&A People Po/er Revolution in 5+<, the first e9ecutive act of then

President ora=on . A8uino /as to create the Presidential o((ission on >ood

>overn(ent P>>;. Pursuant to $9ecutive Order No. , the P>> /as given the

follo/ing (andate:

&ec. . 2he o((ission shall be charged /ith the tas3 of assisting the President in

regard to the follo/ing (atters:

a; 2he recover* of all ill-gotten /ealth accu(ulated b* for(er President

)erdinand $. Marcos, his i((ediate fa(il*, relatives, subordinates and close

associates, /hether located in the Philippines or abroad, including the ta3eover

or se8uestration of all business enterprises and entities o/ned or controlled b*the(, during his ad(inistration, directl* or through no(inees, b* ta3ing undue

advantage of their public office and?or using their po/ers, authorit*, influence,

connections or relationship.

b; 2he investigation of such cases of graft and corruption as the President (a*

assign to the o((ission fro( ti(e to ti(e.

c; 2he adoption of safeguards to ensure that the above practices shall not be

repeated in an* (anner under the ne/ govern(ent, and the institution of ade8uate (easures to prevent the occurrence of corruption.

&ec. 4. 2he o((ission shall have the po/er and authorit*:

a; 2o conduct investigation as (a* be necessar* in order to acco(plish and

carr* out the purposes of this order.

b; 2o se8uester or place or cause to be placed under its control or possession

an* building or office /herein an* ill-gotten /ealth or properties (a* be found,

and an* records pertaining thereto, in order to prevent their destruction,conceal(ent or disappearance /hich /ould frustrate or ha(per the investigation

or other/ise prevent the o((ission fro( acco(plishing its tas3.

c; 2o provisionall* ta3e over in the public interest or to prevent its disposal or

dissipation, business enterprises and properties ta3en over b* the govern(ent of the Marcos Ad(inistration or b* entities or persons close to for(er President

Marcos, until the transactions leading to such ac8uisition b* the latter can bedisposed of b* the appropriate authorities.

d; 2o en@oin or restrain an* actual or threatened co((ission of facts b* an* person or entit* that (a* render (oot and acade(ic, or frustrate, or other/ise

(a3e ineffectual the efforts of the o((ission to carr* out its tas3s under this

order.



e; 2o ad(inister oaths, and issue subpoena re8uiring the attendance and

testi(on* of /itnesses and?or the production of such boo3s, papers, contracts,

records, state(ent of accounts and other docu(ents as (a* be (aterial to the

investigation conducted b* the o((ission.

f; 2o hold an* person in direct or indirect conte(pt and i(pose the appropriate

penalties, follo/ing the sa(e procedures and penalties provided in the Rules of

ourt.

g; 2o see3 and secure the assistance of an* office, agenc* or instru(entalit* of the govern(ent.

h; 2o pro(ulgate such rules and regulations as (a* be necessar* to carr* out

the purpose of this order.

2hus, nu(erous civil and cri(inal cases /ere subse8uentl* filed. One of the civil

cases filed before the &andiganba*an to recover the Marcoses alleged ill-gotten /ealth

/as ivil ase No. , no/ sub@ect of this Petition.

On < #ul* 5+, the P>>, acting on behalf of the Republic and assisted b* the

Office of the &olicitor >eneral O&>;, filed a o(plaint for Reversion, Reconve*ance,

Restitution, Accounting and 7a(ages against )erdinand $. Marcos, /ho /as later

substituted b* his estate upon his death6 I(elda R. Marcos6 and herein respondents I(ee

Marcos-Manotoc, Irene Marcos-Araneta, Bongbong Marcos, 2o(as Manotoc, and

>regorio Araneta III.

On October 5+, the P>> filed an a(ended o(plaint to add onstante

Rubio as defendant.

Again on 5 )ebruar* 5++, it a(ended the o(plaint, this ti(e to include as

defendants Ne(esio >. o and herein respondents 'eung hun a(, 'eung hun Co,

and 'eung hun )an.

)or the third ti(e, on 4 April 55, the P>> a(ended its o(plaint, adding toits gro/ing list of defendants I(elda o@uangco, the estate of Ra(on o@uangco, and

Pri(e Coldings, Inc.01

2he P>> filed a fourth a(ended o(plaint, /hich /as later denied b* the

&andiganba*an in its Resolution dated &epte(ber 55+.





2he allegations contained in the o(plaint specific to herein respondents are the

follo/ing:041

5. 7efendants I(elda IM$$; R. Marcos-Manotoc, 2o(as Manotoc, Irene R.

Manotoc sic; Araneta, >regorio Ma. Araneta III, and )erdinand R. Marcos, #r., activel*

collaborated, /ith 7efendants )erdinand $. Marcos and I(elda R. Marcos a(ong

others, in confiscating and?or unla/full* appropriating funds and other propert*, and inconcealing the sa(e as described above. In addition, each of the said 7efendants, either

b* ta3ing undue advantage of their relationship /ith 7efendants )erdinand $. Marcosand I(elda R. Marcos, or b* reason of the above-described active collaboration,

unla/full* ac8uired or received propert*, shares of stoc3s in corporations, illegal

pa*(ents such as co((issions, bribes or 3ic3bac3s, and other for(s of i(proper privileges, inco(e, revenues and benefits. 7efendant Araneta in particular (ade use of

Asialand 7evelop(ent orporation /hich is included in Anne9 A hereof as corporate

vehicle to benefit in the (anner stated above.

4. 7efendants Ne(esio >. o, 'eung hun a(, 'eung hun Co and 'eung

hun )an are the controlling stoc3holders of >lorious &un )ashion Manufacturingorporation Phils.;. 2hrough >lorious &un Phils.;, the* acted as fronts or du((ies,

cronies or other/ise /illing tools of spouses )erdinand and I(elda Marcos and?or the

fa(il*, particularl* of 7efendant I(elda I(ee; Marcos-Manotoc, in the illegal salting

of foreign e9change0D1 b* i(porting deni( fabrics fro( onl* one supplier a Cong

ong based corporation /hich /as also o/ned and controlled b* defendant Cong ong

investors, at prices (uch higher than those being paid b* other users of si(ilar (aterials

to the grave and irreparable da(age of Plaintiff.

2hus, petitioner set forth the follo/ing causes of action in its o(plaint:0E1

4. )irst ause of Action: BR$AC O) PFB"I 2RF&2 A public office is a

public trust. B* co((itting all the acts described above, 7efendants repeatedl*

breached public trust and the la/, (a3ing the( liable solidaril* to Plaintiff. 2he fundsand other propert* ac8uired b* 7efendants follo/ing, or as a result of, their breach of

public trust, so(e of /hich are (entioned or described above, esti(ated to a(ount to

billion are dee(ed to have been ac8uired for the benefit of Plaintiff and are,₱

therefore, i(pressed /ith constructive trust in favor of Plaintiff and the )ilipino people.

onse8uentl*, 7efendants are solidaril* liable to restore or reconve* to Plaintiff all such

funds and propert* thus i(pressed /ith constructive trust for the benefit of Plaintiff and

the )ilipino people.

44. &econd ause of Action: ABF&$ O) RI>C2 AN7 POG$R

a; 7efendants, in perpetrating the unla/ful acts described above, co((itted

abuse of right and po/er /hich caused untold (iser*, sufferings and da(ages to

Plaintiff. 7efendants violated, a(ong others Articles 5, , and of the ivil ode of the Philippines6









b; As a result of the foregoing acts, 7efendants ac8uired the title to the

beneficial interest in funds and other propert* and concealed such title, funds and

interest through the use of relatives, business associates, no(inees, agents, or du((ies.

7efendants are, therefore, solidaril* liable to Plaintiff to return and reconve* all suchfunds and other propert* unla/full* ac8uired b* the( esti(ated at 2GO CFN7R$7

BI""ION P$&O&, or alternativel*, to pa* Plaintiff, solidaril*, b* /a* of inde(nit*, the

da(age caused to Plaintiff e8uivalent to the a(ount of such funds or the value of other propert* not returned or restored to Plaintiff, plus interest thereon fro( the date of

unla/ful ac8uisition until full pa*(ent thereof.

4D. 2hird ause of Action: FN#F&2 $NRICM$N2

7efendants illegall* accu(ulated funds and other propert* /hose esti(atedvalue is billion in violation of the la/s of the Philippines and in breach of their ₱

official functions and fiduciar* obligations. 7efendants, therefore, have un@ustl*

enriched the(selves to the grave and irreparable da(age and pre@udice of Plaintiff.

7efendants have an obligation at la/, independentl* of breach of trust and abuse of rightand po/er, and as an alternative, to solidaril* return to Plaintiff such funds and other

propert* /ith /hich 7efendants, in gross evident bad faith, have un@ustl* enrichedthe(selves or, in default thereof, restore to Plaintiff the a(ount of such funds and thevalue of the other propert* including those /hich (a* have been /asted, and?or lost

esti(ated at billion /ith interest thereon fro( the date of unla/ful ac8uisition₱

until full pa*(ent thereof.

4E. )ourth ause of Action: AOFN2IN>

2he o((ission, acting pursuant to the provisions of the applicable la/, believethat 7efendants, acting singl* or collectivel*, in unla/ful concert /ith one another, and

/ith the active collaboration of third persons, sub@ect of separate suits, ac8uired funds,

assets and propert* during the incu(benc* of 7efendant public officers, (anifestl* out

of proportion to their salaries, to their other la/ful inco(e and inco(e fro( legiti(atel*ac8uired propert*. onse8uentl*, the* are re8uired to sho/ to the satisfaction of this

Conorable ourt that the* have la/full* ac8uired all such funds, assets and propert*/hich are in e9cess of their legal net inco(e, and for this Conorable ourt to decree that

the 7efendants are under obligation to account to Plaintiff /ith respect to all legal or

beneficial interests in funds, properties and assets of /hatever 3ind and /herever located in e9cess of the la/ful earnings or la/ful inco(e fro( legiti(atel* ac8uired

propert*.

4<. )ifth ause of Action "IABI"I2' )OR 7AMA>$&

a; B* reason of the unla/ful acts set forth above, Plaintiff and the )ilipino people have suffered actual da(ages in an a(ount representing the pecuniar* losssustained b* the latter as a result of the 7efendants unla/ful acts, the appro9i(ate value

and interest of /hich, fro( the ti(e of their /rongful ac8uisition, are esti(ated at ₱

billion plus e9penses /hich Plaintiff has been co(pelled to incur and shall continue toincur in its effort to recover 7efendants ill-gotten /ealth all over the /orld, /hich

e9penses are reasonabl* esti(ated at E (illion. 7efendants are, therefore, @ointl*₱

and severall* liable to Plaintiff for actual da(ages in an a(ount reasonabl* esti(ated at



Billion Pesos and to rei(burse e9penses for recover* of 7efendants ill-gotten₱

/ealth esti(ated to cost E (illion or in such a(ount as are proven during the trial.₱

b; As a result of 7efendants acts described above, Plaintiff and the )ilipino people had painfull* endured and suffered (oral da(ages for (ore than t/ent* long

*ears, anguish, fright, sleepless nights, serious an9iet*, /ounded feelings and (oral

shoc3 as /ell as bes(irched reputation and social hu(iliation before the international

co((unit*.

c; In addition, Plaintiff and the )ilipino people are entitled to te(perateda(ages for their sufferings /hich, b* their ver* nature are incapable of pecuniar*

esti(ation, but /hich this Conorable ourt (a* deter(ine in the e9ercise of its sound

discretion.

d; 7efendants, b* reason of the above described unla/ful acts, have violated

and invaded the inalienable right of Plaintiff and the )ilipino people to a fair and decent

/a* of life befitting a Nation /ith rich natural and hu(an resources. 2his basic andfunda(ental right of Plaintiff and the )ilipino people should be recogni=ed and

vindicated b* a/arding no(inal da(ages in an a(ount to be deter(ined b* theConorable ourt in the e9ercise of its sound discretion.

e; B* /a* of e9a(ple and correction for the public good and in order to ensure

that 7efendants unla/ful, (alicious, i((oral and /anton acts are not repeated, said7efendants are solidaril* liable to Plaintiff for e9e(plar* da(ages.

In the (eanti(e, the Pantranco $(plo*ees Association-P2>GO P$A-P2>GO;,

a union of Pantranco e(plo*ees, (oved to intervene before the &andiganba*an. 2he

for(er alleged that the trust funds in the account of Pantranco North $9press, Inc.

Pantranco; a(ounting to EE (illion rightfull* belonged to the Pantranco e(plo*ees,₱

pursuant to the (one* @udg(ent the National "abor Relations o((ission N"R;

a/arded in favor of the e(plo*ees and against Pantranco. 2hus, P$A-P2>GO

contested the allegation of petitioner that the assets of Pantranco /ere ill-gotten because,

other/ise, these assets /ould be returned to the govern(ent and not to the e(plo*ees.

2hereafter, petitioner presented and for(all* offered its evidence against herein

respondents. Co/ever, the latter ob@ected to the offer pri(aril* on the ground that thedocu(ents violated the best evidence rule of the Rules of ourt, as these docu(ents

/ere unauthenticated6 (oreover, petitioner had not provided an* reason for its failure to

present the originals.

On March , the &andiganba*an issued a Resolution0<1 ad(itting the

pieces of evidence /hile e9pressing so(e reservation, to /it:





'HEREFORE, ta3ing note of the ob@ections of accused Marcoses and the repl*

thereto b* the plaintiff, all the docu(entar* e9hibits for(all* offered b* the prosecution

are hereb* ad(itted in evidence6 ho/ever, their evidentiar* value shall be left to the

deter(ination of the ourt.

SO ORDERED.

I(elda R. Marcos6 I(ee Marcos-Manotoc and Bongbong Marcos, #r.6 Irene

Marcos-Araneta and >regorio Ma. Araneta III6 'eung hun a(, 'eung hun Co and

'eung hun )an6 and the P$A-P2>GO subse8uentl* filed their respective 7e(urrers

to $vidence.

On < 7ece(ber E, the &andiganba*an issued the assailed Resolution,01 /hich

granted all the 7e(urrers to $vidence e9cept the one filed b* I(elda R. Marcos. 2he

dispositive portion reads:

'HEREFORE, pre(ises considered, the 7e(urrer to $vidence filed b*

defendant I(elda R. Marcos is hereb* DENIED. 2he 7e(urrer to $vidence filed b*

defendants Maria I(elda Marcos Manotoc, )erdinand Marcos, #r., Irene MarcosAraneta, >regorio Maria Araneta III, 'eung hun a(, 'eung hun )an, 'eung hun

Co, and intervenor P$A-P2>GO, are hereb*GRANTED. 2he se8uestration orders on

the properties in the na(e of defendant >regorio Maria Araneta III, are accordingl*

ordered lifted.

SO ORDERED.

2he &andiganba*an denied I(elda R. Marcos 7e(urrer pri(aril* because she

had categoricall* ad(itted that she and her husband o/ned properties enu(erated in the

o(plaint, /hile stating that these properties had been la/full* ac8uired. 2he court held

that the evidence presented b* petitioner constituted a prima facie case against her,

considering that the value of the properties involved /as grossl* disproportionate to the

Marcos spouses la/ful inco(e. 2hus, this ad(ission and the fact that I(elda R. Marcos

/as the co(pulsor* heir and ad(inistratri9 of the Marcos estate /ere the pri(ar*

reasons /h* the court held that she /as responsible for accounting for the funds and

properties alleged to be ill-gotten.

&econdl*, the court pointed out that Rolando >apud, /hose deposition /as ta3en

in Cong ong, referred to her as one directl* involved in a(assing ill-gotten /ealth.

2he court also considered the co(pro(ise agree(ent bet/een petitioner and Antonio O.





)loirendo, /ho disclosed that he had perfor(ed several business transactions upon the

instructions of the Marcos spouses.

Gith regard to the siblings I(ee Marcos-Manotoc and Bongbong Marcos, #r., the

court noted that their involve(ent in the alleged illegal activities /as never established.

In fact, the* /ere never (entioned b* an* of the /itnesses presented. Neither did the

docu(entar* evidence pinpoint an* specific involve(ent of the Marcos children.

Moreover, the court held that the evidence, in particular, e9hibits P,0+1 H,051 R,

01 &,01 and 2,01 /ere considered hearsa*, because their originals /ere not

presented in court, nor /ere the* authenticated b* the persons /ho e9ecuted the(.

)urther(ore, the court pointed out that petitioner failed to provide an* valid reason /h*

it did not present the originals in court. 2hese e9hibits /ere supposed to sho/ the

interests of I(ee Marcos-Manoto3 in the (edia net/or3s IB-4, BB- and RPN-5,

all three of /hich she had allegedl* ac8uired illegall*. 2hese e9hibits also sought to

prove her alleged participation in dollar salting through 7e &oleil Apparel.

)inall*, the court held that the relationship of respondents to the Marcos spouses

/as not enough reason to hold the for(er liable.

In the (atter of the spouses Irene Marcos and >regorio Araneta III, the court

si(ilarl* held that there /as no testi(onial or docu(entar* evidence that supported

petitioners allegations against the couple. Again, petitioner failed to present the original

docu(ents that supposedl* supported the allegations against the(. Instead, it (erel* presented photocopies of docu(ents that sought to prove ho/ the Marcoses used the

Potencianos041 as du((ies in ac8uiring and operating the bus co(pan* Pantranco.

Mean/hile, as far as the 'eungs /ere concerned, the court found the allegations

against the( baseless. Petitioner failed to de(onstrate ho/ their business, >lorious &un

)ashion >ar(ents Manufacturing, o. Phils. >lorious &un;, /as used as a vehicle for

dollar salting6 or to sho/ that the* the(selves /ere du((ies of the Marcoses. Again,

the court held that the docu(entar* evidence relevant to this allegation /as inad(issiblefor being (ere photocopies, and that the affiants had not been presented as /itnesses.

)inall*, the court also granted the 7e(urrer filed b* P$A-P2>GO. Ghile the

court held that there /as no evidence to sho/ that Pantranco /as illegall* ac8uired, the

for(er nevertheless held that there /as a need to first deter(ine the o/nership of the

disputed funds before the* could be ordered released to the rightful o/ner.















On 7ece(ber E, petitioner filed its Motion for Partial Reconsideration,

insisting that there /as a preponderance of evidence to sho/ that respondents Marcos

siblings and >regorio Araneta III had connived /ith their parents in ac8uiring ill-gotten

/ealth. It pointed out that respondents /ere co(pulsor* heirs to the deposed President

and /ere thus obliged to render an accounting and to return the ill-gotten /ealth.

Moreover, petitioner asserted that the evidence established that the 'eungs /ere

du((ies of the Marcoses, and that the Pantranco assets /ere part of the Marcoses

alleged ill-gotten /ealth.

)inall*, petitioner 8uestioned the courts ruling that the evidence previousl*

ad(itted /as later held to be inad(issible in evidence against respondents, thus,

depriving the for(er of due process.

Inadvertentl*, petitioner /as not able to serve a cop* of the (otion on respondents

I(ee Marcos-Manotoc and Bongbong Marcos, #r. But upon reali=ing the oversight, it

i((ediatel* did so and filed the corresponding Manifestation and Motion before the

court. Nonetheless, this inadvertence pro(pted I(ee Marcos-Manotoc and Bongbong

Marcos, #r. to file their Motion for $ntr* of #udg(ent.

On March <, the court issued the second assailed Resolution,0D1 den*ing

petitioners Motion. 2he court pointed out its reservation in its Resolution dated

March , /herein it said that it /ould still assess and /eigh the evidentiar* value of

the ad(itted evidence. )urther(ore, it said that even if it included the testi(onies of

petitioners /itnesses, these /ere not substantial to hold respondents liable. 2hus, the

court said:

'HEREFORE, there being no sufficient reason to set aside the resolution dated7ece(ber <, E, the plaintiffs Motion for Partial Reconsideration is

hereb* DENIED. 2he plaintiffs Motion and Manifestation dated #anuar* +, <

is GRANTED in the interest of @ustice. 2he Motion for Entry of Judgment filed b*

defendants I(ee Marcos and Bongbong Marcos isDENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Cence, this Petition.





Petitioner raises the sa(e issues it raised in its Motion for Reconsideration filed

before the &andiganba*an, to /it:0E1

I. 2C$ &AN7I>ANBA'AN $RR$7 IN >RAN2IN> 2C$ 7$MFRR$R

2O $!I7$N$ )I"$7 B' R$&PON7$N2& MA. IM$"7A IM$$; R.

MARO& AN7 )$R7INAN7 BON>BON>; R. MARO&, #R.,

ON&I7$RIN> 2CA2 MOR$ 2CAN PR$PON7$RAN2 $!I7$N$ ONR$OR7 "$AR"' 7$MON&2RA2$& 2C$IR ONNI!AN$ GI2C

)ORM$R PR$&I7$N2 )$R7INAN7 $. MARO& AN7 O2C$R MARO&7FMMI$& AN7 ABF&$7 2C$IR POG$R AN7 IN)"F$N$ IN

FN"AG)F""' AMA&&IN> )FN7& )ROM 2C$ NA2IONA" 2R$A&FR'.

II. P$2I2ION PRO!$7, B' MOR$ 2CAN PR$PON7$RAN2 $!I7$N$,

2CA2 R$&PON7$N2-&POF&$& >R$>ORIO ARAN$2A III AN7 IR$N$

MARO& ARAN$2A ONNI!$7 GI2C )ORM$R PR$&I7$N2 MARO&

IN FN"AG)F""' AHFIRIN> BF&IN$&& IN2$R$&2& GCIC AR$>RO&&"' 7I&A7!AN2A>$OF& 2O 2C$ >O!$RNM$N2, AN7 IN A

MANN$R PROCIBI2$7 FN7$R 2C$ ON&2I2F2ION AN7 AN2I->RA)2&2A2F2$&.

III. R$&PON7$N2& IM$$, BON>BON>, AN7 IR$N$ MARO& AR$

OMPF"&OR' C$IR& O) )ORM$R PR$&I7$N2 MARO& AN7 AR$$HFA""' OB"I>$7 2O R$N7$R AN AOFN2IN> AN7 R$2FRN 2C$

A""$>$7 I""->O22$N G$A"2C O) 2C$ MARO&$&.

I!. 2C$R$ $I&2& ONR$2$ $!I7$N$ PRO!IN> 2CA2

R$&PON7$N2& '$FN> CFN AM, '$FN> CFN )AN, AN7 '$FN>

CFN CO A2$7 A& 7FMMI$& )OR 2C$ MARO&$&, AN7 F&$7 2C$

ORPORA2ION, >"ORIOF& &FN, A& A ON7FI2 IN AMA&&IN> 2C$I""->O22$N G$A"2C. AOR7IN>"', 2C$ &AN7I>ANBA'AN $RR$7

IN >RAN2IN> 2C$IR 7$MFRR$R 2O $!I7$N$.

!. 2C$ 7$MFRR$R 2O $!I7$N$ )I"$7 B' IN2$R!$NOR P$A-

P2>GO GI2C R$&P$2 2O 2C$ PAN2RANO A&&$2& &COF"7 NO2

CA!$ B$$N >RAN2$7 &IN$ AMP"$ $!I7$N$ PRO!$& 2CA2 2C$&AI7 A&&$2& IN7FBI2AB"' )ORM PAR2 O) 2C$ MARO& I""-

>O22$N G$A"2C, A& BF22R$&&$7 B' 2C$ )A2 2CA2 NO #F7IIA"

7$2$RMINA2ION CA& B$$N MA7$ A& 2O GCOM 2C$&$ A&&$2&

RI>C2)F""' B$"ON>.

!I. 2C$ &AN7I>ANBA'AN& RF"IN> GCIC R$#$2$7 P$I2I2ON$R&7OFM$N2AR' $CIBI2& A""$>$7"' )OR B$IN> INA7MI&&IB"$7IR$2"' ON2RA7I2& I2& $AR"I$R RF"IN> A7MI22IN> A""

&AI7 7OFM$N2AR' $!I7$N$ AN7 GA& R$N7$R$7 IN A MANN$R

2CA2 7$PRI!$7 P$2I2ION$R& RI>C2 2O 7F$ PRO$&& O) "AG.

2here is so(e (erit in petitioners contention.





The Marcos Siblings and

Gregorio Araneta III

losel* anal*=ing petitioners o(plaint and the present Petition for Revie/, it is

clear that the Marcos siblings are being sued in t/o capacities: first, as co-conspirators

in the alleged accu(ulation of ill-gotten /ealth6 and second, as the co(pulsor* heirs of their father, )erdinand $. Marcos.0<1

Gith regard to the first allegation, as contained in paragraph 5 of its 2hird

A(ended o(plaint 8uoted above, petitioner accused the Marcos siblings of having

collaborated /ith, participated in, and?or benefitted fro( their parents alleged

accu(ulation of ill-gotten /ealth. In particular, as far as I(ee Marcos-Manotoc /as

concerned, she /as accused of dollar salting b* using >lorious &un to i(port deni(

fabrics fro( one supplier at prices (uch higher than those paid b* other users of si(ilar

(aterials. It /as also alleged that the Marcoses personall* benefitted fro( the

se8uestered (edia net/or3s IB-4, BB-, and RPN-5, in /hich I(ee Marcos had a

substantial interest.

Irene Marcos-Araneta, on the other hand, /as accused of having conspired /ith

her husband, respondent >regorio Araneta III, in his being President Marcos conduit to

Pantranco, thereb* paving the /a* for the Presidents o/nership of the co(pan* in

violation of Article !II, &ection D, paragraph of the 54 onstitution.01

2o prove the general allegations against the Marcos siblings, petitioner pri(aril*

relied on the &/orn &tate(ent0+1 and the 7eposition051 of one of the financial

advisors of President Marcos, Rolando . >apud, ta3en in Cong ong on various dates.

Mean/hile, to prove the participation and interests of I(ee Marcos-Manotoc in

7e &oleil Apparel and the (edia net/or3s, petitioner relied on the Affidavits of Ra(on

&. Mon=on,01 'eung /o3 'ing,01 and Rodolfo !. Puno601 and the transcript of

stenographic notes 2&N; ta3en during the P>> hearing held on + #une 5+.041

As to spouses Irene Marcos-Araneta and >regorio Araneta III, petitioner sub(itted the Articles of Incorporation of Northern $9press 2ransport, Inc.60D1 the

Me(orandu( of Agree(ent0E1 and the Purchase Agree(ent0<1 bet/een Pantranco

and Batangas "aguna 2a*abas Bus o(pan*, Inc. B"2Bo.;6 the onfidential

Me(orandu( regarding the sale of the Pantranco assets601 the Affidavit0+1 and the

letter to the P>>051 of 7olores A. Potenciano, o/ner of B"2Bo.6 the

Affidavit041 and the Me(orandu(041of $duardo )a@ardo, /ho /as then the &enior

!ice-President of the Account Manage(ent >roup of the Philippine National Ban3



































PNB;, /hich /as in turn the creditor for the Pantranco sale6 and the Affidavit of

)lorencio P. "ucio, /ho /as the &enior Account &pecialist of the National Invest(ent

and 7evelop(ent orporation.041

Petitioner contends that these docu(ents fall under the Rules third e9ception, that

is, these docu(ents are public records in the custod* of a public officer or are recorded

in a public office. It is its theor* that since these docu(ents /ere collected b* theP>>, then, necessaril*, the conditions for the e9ception to appl* had been (et.

Alternativel*, it asserts that the docu(ents /ere offered to prove not onl* the truth of the

recitals of the docu(ents, but also of other e9ternal or collateral facts.0441

Te Court Ru/0#1

Petitioner failed to observe the

best evidence rule.

It is petitioners burden to prove the allegations in its o(plaint. )or relief to be

granted, the operative act on ho/ and in /hat (anner the Marcos siblings participated in

and?or benefitted fro( the acts of the Marcos couple (ust be clearl* sho/n through a

preponderance of evidence. &hould petitioner fail to discharge this burden, the ourt is

constrained and is left /ith no choice but to uphold the 7e(urrer to $vidence filed b*

respondents.

)irst, petitioner does not den* that /hat should be proved are the contents of the

docu(ents the(selves. It is i(perative, therefore, to sub(it the original docu(ents that

could prove petitioners allegations.

2hus, the photocopied docu(ents are in violation Rule 4, &ec. 4 of the Rules of

ourt, other/ise 3no/n as the best evidence rule, /hich (andates that the evidence

(ust be the original docu(ent itself. 2he origin of the best evidence rule can be found

and traced to as earl* as the +th centur* in Omychund v. Barker ,04D1 /herein the ourt

of hancer* said:

2he @udges and sages of the la/ have laid it do/n that tere 0 2ut o#e 1e#er"/

ru/e o3 e40$e#e, the best that the nature of the case will admit .

Te ru/e 0, t"t 03 te 5r0t0#1 "4e u2r020#1 50t#ee to tem, te6

mut 2e pro4e$ 26 toe 50t#ee.









2he first ground @udges have gone upon in departing fro( strict rules, is an

absolute strict necessit*. Secondly, a presu(ed necessit*. In the case of /ritings,

subscribed b* /itnesses, if all are dead, the proof of one of their hands is sufficient to

establish the deed: /here an original is lost, a cop* (a* be ad(itted6 if no cop*, then a proof b* /itnesses /ho have heard the deed, and *et it is a thing the la/ abhors to ad(it

the (e(or* of (an for evidence.

Petitioner did not even atte(pt to provide a plausible reason /h* the originals

/ere not presented, or an* co(pelling ground /h* the court should ad(it these

docu(ents as secondar* evidence absent the testi(on* of the /itnesses /ho had

e9ecuted the(.

In particular, it (a* not insist that the photocopies of the docu(ents fall under

&ec. of Rule 4, /hich states:

Evidence admissible hen original document is a public record. ! Ghen the

original of a docu(ent is in the custod* of a public officer or is recorded in a publicoffice, its contents (a* be proved be a certified cop* issued b* the public officer in

custod* thereof.

&ecs. 5 and of Rule 4 provide:

&$2ION 5. "lasses of documents. J )or the purpose of their presentation inevidence, docu(ents are either public or private.

Public docu(ents are:

a; 2he /ritten official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign

authorit*, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, /hether of the

Philippines, or of a foreign countr*6

b; 7ocu(ents ac3no/ledged before a notar* public e9cept last /ills and

testa(ents6 and

c; Public records, 3ept in the Philippines, of private docu(ents re8uired b*

la/ to be entered therein.

All other /ritings are private.

&$2ION . Proof of private document . Before an* private docu(ent offered asauthentic is received in evidence, its due e9ecution and authenticit* (ust be proved

either:

a; B* an*one /ho sa/ the docu(ent e9ecuted or /ritten6 or



b; B* evidence of the genuineness of the signature or hand/riting of the

(a3er.

An* other private docu(ent need onl* be identified as that /hich it is clai(ed to be.

2he fact that these docu(ents /ere collected b* the P>> in the course of its

investigations does not (a3e the( per se public records referred to in the 8uoted rule.

Petitioner presented as /itness its records officer, Maria "ourdes Magno, /ho

testified that these public and private docu(ents had been gathered b* and ta3en into the

custod* of the P>> in the course of the o((issions investigation of the alleged ill-

gotten /ealth of the Marcoses. Co/ever, given the purposes for /hich these docu(ents

/ere sub(itted, Magno /as not a credible /itness /ho could testif* as to their contents.

2o reiterate, 0i1f the /ritings have subscribing /itnesses to the(, the* (ust be proved b*

those /itnesses. Gitnesses can testif* onl* to those facts /hich are of their personal3no/ledge6 that is, those derived fro( their o/n perception.04E1 2hus, Magno could

onl* testif* as to ho/ she obtained custod* of these docu(ents, but not as to the

contents of the docu(ents the(selves.

Neither did petitioner present as /itnesses the affiants of these Affidavits or

Me(oranda sub(itted to the court. Basic is the rule that, /hile affidavits (a* be

considered as public docu(ents if the* are ac3no/ledged before a notar* public, these

Affidavits are still classified as hearsa* evidence. 2he reason for this rule is that the* are

not generall* prepared b* the affiant, but b* another one /ho uses his or her o/n

language in /riting the affiantKs state(ents, parts of /hich (a* thus be either o(itted or

(isunderstood b* the one /riting the(. Moreover, the adverse part* is deprived of the

opportunit* to cross-e9a(ine the affiants. )or this reason, affidavits are generall*

re@ected for being hearsa*, unless the affiants the(selves are placed on the /itness stand

to testif* thereon.04<1

As to the cop* of the 2&N of the proceedings before the P>>, /hile it (a* be

considered as a public docu(ent since it /as ta3en in the course of the P>>s e9ercise

of its (andate, it /as not attested to b* the legal custodian to be a correct cop* of the

original. 2his o(ission falls short of the re8uire(ent of Rule 4, &ecs. D and E of theRules of ourt.041

In su((ar*, /e adopt the ruling of the &andiganba*an, to /it:

)urther, again contrar* to the theor* of the plaintiff, the presentation of theoriginals of the aforesaid e9hibits is not validl* e9cepted under Rule 4, &ection 4 a;,

b;, and d; of the Rules of ourt. Fnder paragraph d;, /hen the original docu(ent is a









public record in the custod* of a public officer or is recorded in a public office,

presentation of the original thereof is e9cepted. Co/ever, as earlier observed, all e9cept

one of the e9hibits introduced b* the plaintiff /ere not necessaril* public docu(ents.

2he transcript of stenographic notes 2&N; of the proceedings purportedl* before theP>>, the plaintiffs e9hibit H, (a* be a public docu(ent, but /hat /as presented b*

the plaintiff /as a (ere photocop* of the purported 2&N. 2he Rules provide that /hen

the original docu(ent is in the custod* of a public officer or is recorded in a publicoffice, its contents (a* be proved b* a certified cop* issued b* the public officer in

custod* thereof. $9hibit H /as not a certified cop* and it /as not even signed b* the

stenographer /ho supposedl* too3 do/n the proceedings.

2he rest of the above-(entioned e9hibits cannot li3e/ise be e9cepted under

paragraphs a; and b; of &ection 4. &ection E of the sa(e Rule provides that /hen theoriginal docu(ents has been lost or destro*ed, or cannot be produced in court, the

offeror, upon proof of its e9ecution or e9istence and the cause of its unavailabilit*

/ithout bad faith on his part, (a* prove its contents b* a cop*, or b* a recital of its

contents in so(e authentic docu(ent, or b* the testi(on* of /itnesses in the order stated. 2hus, in order that secondar* evidence (a* be ad(issible, there (ust be proof

b* satisfactor* evidence of ; due e9ecution of the original6 ; loss, destruction or unavailabilit* of all such originals and 4; reasonable diligence and good faith in thesearch for or atte(pt to produce the original. None of these re8uire(ents /ere co(plied

/ith b* the plaintiff. &i(ilar to e9hibit H, e9hibits P, R, &, and 2 /ere all photocopies. P,

R, and 2 /ere affidavits of persons /ho did not testif* before the ourt. $9hibit & is aletter /hich is clearl* a private docu(ent. Not onl* does it not fall /ithin the e9ceptions

of &ection 4, it is also a (ere photocop*. As Ge previousl* e(phasi=ed, even if originals

of these affidavits /ere presented, the* /ould still be considered hearsa* evidence if the

affiants do not testif* and identif* the(.04+1

2hus, absent an* convincing evidence to hold other/ise, it follo/s that petitioner

failed to prove that the Marcos siblings and >regorio Araneta III collaborated /ith

for(er President Marcos and I(elda R. Marcos and participated in the first couples

alleged accu(ulation of ill-gotten /ealth insofar as the specific allegations herein /ere

concerned.

The Marcos siblings are compulsor heirs.

2o reiterate, in its third A(ended o(plaint, petitioner pra*s that the Marcos

respondents be (ade to ; pa* for the value of the alleged ill-gotten /ealth /ith interest

fro( the date of ac8uisition6 ; render a co(plete accounting and inventor* of all funds

and other pieces of propert* legall* or beneficiall* held and?or controlled b* the(, as

/ell as their legal and beneficial interest therein6 4; pa* actual da(ages esti(ated

at P billion and additional actual da(ages to rei(burse e9penses for the recover* of

the alleged ill-gotten /ealth esti(ated at PE (illion or in such a(ount as (a* be





proven during trial6 D; pa* (oral da(ages a(ounting to PE billion6 E; pa* te(perate

and no(inal da(ages, as /ell as attorne*s fees and litigation e9penses in an a(ount to

be proven during the trial6 <; pa* e9e(plar* da(ages in the a(ount of P billion6 and

; pa* treble @udicial costs.0451

It (ust be stressed that /e are faced /ith e9ceptional circu(stances, given thenature and the e9tent of the properties involved in the case pending /ith the

&andiganba*an. It bears e(phasis that the o(plaint is one for the reversion, the

reconve*ance, the restitution and the accounting of alleged ill-gotten /ealth and the

pa*(ent of da(ages. Based on the allegations of the o(plaint, the court is charged

/ith the tas3 of ; deter(ining the properties in the Marcos estate that constitute the

alleged ill-gotten /ealth6 ; tracing /here these properties are6 4; issuing the

appropriate orders for the accounting, the recover*, and the pa*(ent of these properties6

and, finall*, D; deter(ining if the a/ard of da(ages is proper.

&ince the pending case before the &andiganba*an survives the death of )erdinand

$. Marcos, it is i(perative therefore that the estate be dul* represented. 2he purpose

behind this rule is the protection of the right to due process of ever* part* to a litigation

/ho (a* be affected b* the intervening death. 2he deceased litigant is hi(self

protected, as he continues to be properl* represented in the suit through the dul*

appointed legal representative of his estate.0D1 On that note, /e ta3e @udicial notice of

the probate proceedings regarding the /ill of )erdinand $. Marcos. In Republic of the

Philippines v. Marcos ## ,0D1 /e upheld the grant b* the Regional 2rial ourt R2; of letters testa(entar* in solidum to )erdinand R. Marcos, #r. and I(elda Ro(ualde=-

Marcos as e9ecutors of the last /ill and testa(ent of the late )erdinand $. Marcos.

Fnless the e9ecutors of the Marcos estate or the heirs are read* to /aive in favor

of the state their right to defend or protect the estate or those properties found to be ill-

gotten in their possession, control or o/nership, then the* (a* not be dropped as

defendants in the civil case pending before the &andiganba*an.

Rule 4, &ec. of the Rules of ourt defines indispensable parties as those parties-in-interest /ithout /ho( there can be no final deter(ination of an action. 2he* are

those parties /ho possess such an interest in the controvers* that a final decree /ould

necessaril* affect their rights, so that the courts cannot proceed /ithout their presence.

Parties are indispensable if their interest in the sub@ect (atter of the suit and in the relief

sought is ine9tricabl* intert/ined /ith that of the other parties.0D1











In order to reach a final deter(ination of the (atters concerning the estate of

)erdinand $. Marcos that is, the accounting and the recover* of ill-gotten /ealth the

present case (ust be (aintained against I(elda Marcos and herein respondent

)erdinand Bongbong R. Marcos, #r., as e9ecutors of the Marcos estate pursuant to &ec.

of Rule + of the Rules of ourt. According to this provision, actions (a* be

co((enced to recover fro( the estate, real or personal propert*, or an interest therein,

or to enforce a lien thereon6 and actions to recover da(ages for an in@ur* to person or

propert*, real or personal, (a* be co((enced against the e9ecutors.

Ge also hold that the action (ust li3e/ise be (aintained against I(ee Marcos-

Manotoc and Irene Marcos-Araneta on the basis of the non-e9haustive list attached as

Anne9 A to the 2hird A(ended o(plaint, /hich states that the listed properties therein

/ere o/ned b* )erdinand and I(elda Marcos and their i((ediate fa(il*.0D41 It is onl*during the trial of ivil ase No. before the &andiganba*an that there could be a

deter(ination of /hether these properties are indeed ill-gotten or /ere legiti(atel*

ac8uired b* respondents and their predecessors. 2hus, /hile it /as not proven that

respondents conspired in accu(ulating ill-gotten /ealth, the* (a* be in possession,

o/nership or control of such ill-gotten properties or the proceeds thereof as heirs of the

Marcos couple. 2hus, their lac3 of participation in an* illegal act does not re(ove the

character of the propert* as ill-gotten and, therefore, as rightfull* belonging to the &tate.

&econdl*, under the rules of succession, the heirs instantaneousl* beca(e co-

o/ners of the Marcos properties upon the death of the President. 2he propert* rights andobligations to the e9tent of the value of the inheritance of a person are trans(itted to

another through the decedents death.0DD1 In this concept, nothing prevents the heirs fro(

e9ercising their right to transfer or dispose of the properties that constitute their

legiti(es, even absent their declaration or absent the partition or the distribution of the

estate. In Jakosalem v. Rafols,0DE1 /e said:

Article DD of the ivil ode provides that te poe0o# o3 ere$0t"r6

propert6 0 $eeme$ to 2e tr"#m0tte$ to te e0r 50tout 0#terrupt0o# 3rom te

0#t"#t o3 te $e"t o3 te $ee$e#t, 0# "e te 0#er0t"#e 2e "epte$. And

Manresa /ith reason states that upo# te $e"t o3 " pero#, e" o3 0 e0r 2eomete u#$040$e$ o5#er o3 te 5o/e et"te /e3t 50t repet to te p"rt or port0o#

50 m01t 2e "$7u$0"te$ to 0m, " ommu#0t6 o3 o5#er0p 2e0#1 tu 3orme$

"mo#1 te oo5#er o3 te et"te 50/e 0t rem"0# u#$040$e$. 4 Manresa,

4E6 $lcala vs. $lcala, 4E Phil. <5.; And according to article 455 of the ivilode, e4er6 p"rt o5#er m"6 "01# or mort1"1e 0 p"rt 0# te ommo# propert6 ,

and the effect of such assign(ent or (ortgage shall be li(ited to the portion /hich (a*

be allotted hi( in the partition upon the dissolution of the co((unit*. He#e, 0# te

"e o3 !amire" vs. #autista, (8 P0/. 9:;, 5ere ome o3 te e0r, 50tout te









o#urre#e o3 te oter, o/$ " propert6 /e3t 26 te0r $ee"e$ 3"ter, t0 Court,

pe"<0#1 tru 0t te# C0e3 Jut0e C"6et"#o Are//"#o, "0$ t"t te "/e 5" 4"/0$,

2ut t"t te e33et tereo3 5" /0m0te$ to te "re 50 m"6 2e "//otte$ to te

4e#$or upo# te p"rt0t0o# o3 te et"te. $(phasis supplied;

"astl*, petitioners pra*er in its 2hird A(ended o(plaint directl* refers to hereinrespondents, to it :

. A& 2O 2C$ )IR&2 &$ON7 AN7 2CIR7 AF&$& O) A2ION To

retur# "#$ reo#4e6 to P/"0#t033 "// 3u#$ "#$ oter propert6 "=u0re$ b*

7efendants during their incu(benc* as public officers, /hich funds and other propert*

are (anifestl* out of proportion to their salaries, other la/ful inco(e and inco(e fro(legiti(atel* ac8uired propert* /hich 7efendants have failed to establish as having been,

in fact, la/full* ac8uired b* the(, alternativel*, to solidaril* pa* Plaintiff the value

thereof /ith interest thereon fro( the date of ac8uisition until full pa*(ent.

. A& 2O 2C$ )OFR2C AF&$ O) A2ION to 0#$040$u"//6 re#$er to t0Ho#or"2/e Court " omp/ete "ou#t0#1 "#$ 0#4e#tor6, sub@ect to evaluation of

ourt-appointed assessors, of all funds and other propert* legall* or beneficiall* heldand?or controlled b* the(, as /ell as their legal and beneficial interest in such funds and

other propert*. $(phasis supplied;

In su(, the Marcos siblings are (aintained as respondents, because ; the action

pending before the &andiganba*an is one that survives death, and, therefore, the rights to

the estate (ust be dul* protected6 ; the* allegedl* control, possess or o/n ill-gotten/ealth, though their direct involve(ent in accu(ulating or ac8uiring such /ealth (a*

not have been proven.

$eung %hun &am' $eung %hun

(o And $eung %hun )an

It is /orth* to note that respondents dra/ our attention to $merican #nter%&ashion

"orporation v. Office of the President 0D<1 in /hich the* contend that this ourt

considered the allegation of dollar salting as baseless. 2he cited case, ho/ever, finds noapplication herein as the for(er (erel* ruled that >lorious &un /as denied due process

/hen it /as not furnished b* the >ar(ents and 2e9tile $9port Board >2$B; an* basis

for the cancellation of the e9port 8uota because of allegations of dollar salting. 2hat

7ecision did not prevent petitioner fro( adducing evidence to support its allegation in

ivil ase No. before the &andiganba*an under a different cause of action.





Nevertheless, the allegations against 'eung hun a(, 'eung hun Co and

'eung hun )an in the case at bar /ere also proved to be baseless. Again, petitioner

failed to illustrate ho/ respondents herein acted as du((ies of the Marcoses in

ac8uiring ill-gotten /ealth. 2his ourt notes that the o(plaint against the 'eungs

alleges that the Marcoses used >lorious &un the gar(ent co(pan* in /hich the 'eungs

are controlling stoc3holders for illegal dollar salting through the co(pan*s i(portation

of deni( fabrics fro( onl* one supplier at prices (uch higher than those being paid b*

other users of si(ilar (aterials. Notabl*, no (ention of 7e &oleil Apparel /as (ade.

2o prove its allegations, petitioner sub(itted the controverted $9hibits P, H, R, &,

and 2. As earlier discussed in detail, these pieces of evidence /ere (ere photocopies of

the originals and /ere unauthenticated b* the persons /ho e9ecuted the(6 thus, the*

have no probative value. $ven the allegations of petitioner itself in its Petition for

Revie/ are bereft of an* factual basis for holding that these docu(ents undoubtedl*

sho/ respondents participation in the alleged dollar salting. 2he pertinent portion of the

Petition reads:

2o illustrate, the Affidavit dated Ma* 5, 5+ e9ecuted b* Mr. Ra(on Mon=on/hich /as sub(itted as E+020t P, sho/ed that respondent I(ee Marcos-Manotoc o/ns

and controls IB-4, BB- and R;PN-5, and has interest in the 7e &oleil Apparel.

2he testi(on* of Mr. Ra(on Mon=on during the hearing on #une +, 5+ before the

Presidential o((ission on >ood >overn(ent as sho/n in the 2ranscript of &tenographic Notes also affir(ed his declarations in the Affidavit dated Ma* 5, 5+.

2he 2ranscript of &tenographic Notes dated #une +, 5+ /as presented as E+020t >.Moreover, the Affidavit dated March , 5+< of 'eung /o3 'ing /hich /as

presented as E+020t R disclosed that I(ee Marcos-Manotoc is the o/ner of <L e8uit*

of 7e &oleil Apparel. 2he letter dated #ul* , 5+D signed b* seven ; incorporators of

7e &oleil Apparel, addressed to Cong3ong investors /hich /as presented as E+020t

Sconfir(ed that the signatories hold or o/n <L e8uit* of the corporation in behalf of

the beneficial o/ners previousl* disclosed to the addressees. In addition to the foregoing

docu(ents, petitioner presented the Affidavit of Rodolfo !. Puno, hair(an of the>ar(ents and 2e9tile $9port >roup >2$B; as E+020t T /herein he categoricall*

declared that the (a@orit* of 7e &oleil Apparel /as actuall* o/ned b* respondent I(eeMarcos-Manotoc.0D1

2he foregoing 8uotation fro( the Petition is bereft of an* factual (atter that

/arrants a consideration b* the ourt. &traight fro( the horses (outh, these docu(ents

are onl* (eant to sho/ the o/nership and interest of I(ee Marcos Manotoc in 7e &oleil





and not ho/ respondent supposedl* participated in dollar salting or in the accu(ulation

of ill-gotten /ealth.

P*A+PTG,-

2he P$A-P2>GO 7e(urrer to $vidence /as granted pri(aril* as a conse8uence

of the prosecutions failure to establish that the assets of Pantranco /ere ill-gotten, as

discussed earlier. 2hus, /e find no error in the assailed Order of the &andiganba*an.

A F0#"/ Note

As earlier adverted to, the best evidence rule has been recogni=ed as an

evidentiar* standard since the +th centur*. )or three centuries, it has been practiced as

one of the (ost basic rules in la/. It is difficult to conceive that one could have finished

la/ school and passed the bar e9a(inations /ithout 3no/ing such ele(entar* rule.

2hus, it is deepl* disturbing that the P>> and the Office of the &olicitor >eneral

O&>; the ver* agencies s/orn to protect the interest of the state and its people could

conduct their prosecution in the (anner that the* did. 2o e(phasi=e, the P>> is a

highl* speciali=ed office focused on the recover* of ill-gotten /ealth, /hile the O&> is

the principal legal defender of the govern(ent. 2he la/*ers of these govern(ent

agencies are e9pected to be the best in the legal profession.

Co/ever, despite having the e9pansive resources of govern(ent, the (e(bers of

the prosecution did not even bother to provide an* reason /hatsoever for their failure to

present the original docu(ents or the /itnesses to support the govern(ents clai(s. $ven

/orse /as presenting in evidence a photocop* of the 2&N of the P>> proceedings

instead of the original, or a certified true cop* of the original, /hich the prosecutors

the(selves should have had in their custod*. &uch (anner of legal practice deserves the

reproof of this ourt. Ge are constrained to call attention to this apparentl* serious

failure to follo/ a (ost basic rule in la/, given the special circu(stances surrounding

this case.

2he public prosecutors should e(plo* and use all govern(ent resources and

po/ers efficientl*, effectivel*, honestl* and econo(icall*, particularl* to avoid /astage



of public funds and revenues. 2he* should perfor( and discharge their duties /ith the

highest degree of e9cellence, professionalis(, intelligence and s3ill.0D+1

2he basic ideal of the legal profession is to render service and secure @ustice for

those see3ing its aid.0D51 In order to do this, la/*ers are re8uired to observe and adhere

to the highest ethical and professional standards. 2he legal profession is so i(bued /ith

public interest that its practitioners are accountable not onl* to their clients, but to the public as /ell.

2he public prosecutors, aside fro( being representatives of the govern(ent and

the state, are, first and fore(ost, officers of the court. 2he* too3 the oath to e9ert ever*

effort and to consider it their dut* to assist in the speed* and efficient ad(inistration of

@ustice.0E1 "a/*ers o/e fidelit* to the cause of the client and should be (indful of the

trust and confidence reposed in the(.0E1 Cence, should serve /ith co(petence and

diligence.0E1

Ge note that there are instances /hen this ourt (a* overturn the dis(issal of thelo/er courts in instances /hen it is sho/n that the prosecution has deprived the parties

their due process of la/. In Merciales v. "ourt of $ppeals' /01 /e reversed the 7ecision

of the R2 in dis(issing the cri(inal case for rape /ith ho(icide. In that case, it /as

ver* apparent that the public prosecutor violated the due process rights of the private

co(plainant o/ing to its blatant disregard of procedural rules and the failure to present

available crucial evidence, /hich /ould tend to prove the guilt or innocence of the

accused therein. Moreover, /e li3e/ise found that the trial court /as gravel* re(iss in

its dut* to ferret out the truth and, instead, @ust passivel* /atched as the public

prosecutor bungled the case.

Co/ever, it (ust be e(phasi=ed that Merciales /as filed e9actl* to deter(ine

/hether the prosecution and the trial court gravel* abused their discretion in the

proceedings of the case, thus resulting in the denial of the offended part*s due process.

Mean/hile, the present case (erel* alleges that there /as an error in the

&andiganba*ans consideration of the probative value of evidence. Ge also note that

in Merciales, both the prosecution and the trial court /ere found to be e8uall* guilt* of

serious nonfeasance, /hich pro(pted us to re(and the case to the trial court for further

proceedings and reception of evidence. Merciales is thus inapplicable to the case at bar.

Nevertheless, given the particular conte9t of this case, the failure of the

prosecution to adhere to so(ething as basic as the best evidence rule raises serious

doubts on the level and 8ualit* of effort given to the govern(ents cause. 2hus, /e















highl* encourage the Office of the President, the O&>, and the P>> to conduct the

appropriate investigation and conse8uent action on this (atter.

'HEREFORE, in vie/ of the foregoing, the Petition

is PARTIALL GRANTED. 2he assailed &andiganba*an Resolution dated <

7ece(ber E is AFFIRMED/ith MODIFICATION. )or the reasons stated herein,

respondents I(elda Marcos-Manotoc, Irene Marcos-Araneta, and )erdinand R. Marcos,

#r. shall be (aintained as defendants in ivil ase No. pending before the

&andiganba*an.

"et a cop* of this 7ecision be furnished to the Office of the President so that it

(a* loo3 into the circu(stances of this case and deter(ine the liabilit*, if an*, of the

la/*ers of the Office of the &olicitor >eneral and the Presidential o((ission on >ood>overn(ent in the (anner b* /hich this case /as handled in the &andiganba*an.

SO ORDERED.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Associate #ustice

G$ ONFR:

ARTURO D. BRION

Associate #ustice

Acting hairperson

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. JOSE PORTUGAL PERE?

Associate #ustice Associate #ustice



BIENVENIDO L. REESAssociate #ustice

A T T E S T A T I O N

I attest that the conclusions in the above 7ecision had been reached in consultation

before the case /as assigned to the /riter of the opinion of the ourts 7ivision.

ARTURO D. BRION

Associate #ustice

Acting hairperson, &econd 7ivision

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

Pursuant to &ection 4, Article !III of the onstitution and the 7ivision

Acting hairpersons Attestation, I certif* that the conclusions in the above 7ecision had

been reached in consultation before the case /as assigned to the /riter of the opinion of

the ourts 7ivision.



RENATO C. CORONA

hief #ustice

republic v marcos-manotoc_fulltext

Documents