Republic vs.

Marcos-Manotoc
G.R. No. 171701, 08
February 2012
Facts:
 The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), acting on behalf of the Republic and
assisted by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a Complaint for Reversion,
Reconveyance, Restitution, Accounting and Damages against Ferdinand E. Marcos, who was later
substituted by his estate upon his death; Imelda R. Marcos; and herein respondents Imee Marcos-
Manotoc, Irene Marcos-Araneta, Bongbong Marcos, Tomas Manotoc, and Gregorio Araneta III.
 The PCGG filed an amended Complaint to add Constante Rubio as defendant; another one to
include as defendants Nemesio G. Co and herein respondents Yeung Chun Kam, Yeung Chun Ho,
and Yeung Chun Fan; and a third one to implead Imelda Cojuangco, the estate of Ramon
Cojuangco, and Prime Holdings, Inc.
 The PCGG alleged that:
o Imee, Tomas, Irene, Araneta, and Bongbong, actively collaborated, with Ferdinand and
Imelda, among others, in confiscating and/or unlawfully appropriating funds and other
property, and in concealing the same; thus, they were able to unlawfully acquire or receive
property, shares of stocks in corporations, illegal payments such as commissions, bribes or
kickbacks, and other forms of improper privileges, income, revenues and benefits.
o Co and the Yeungs, the controlling stockholders of Glorious Sun Fashion Manufacturing
Corporation (Phils.), acted as fronts or dummies, cronies or otherwise willing tools of
spouses Ferdinand and Imelda and/or the family, particularly of Imee, in the illegal salting
of foreign exchange, by importing denim fabrics from only one supplier, a Hong Kong
based corporation, which was also owned and controlled by the Hong Kong investors, at
prices much higher than those being paid by other users of similar materials.
 The Pantranco Employees Association PTGWO (PEA-PTGWO), a union of Pantranco employees,
moved to intervene before the Sandiganbayan. It alleged that:
o The trust funds in the account of Pantranco North Express, Inc. (Pantranco) amounting to
P55 million rightfully belonged to the Pantranco employees, pursuant to the money
judgment the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), awarded in favor of the
employees and against Pantranco.
o PEA-PTGWO contested the allegation of petitioner that the assets of Pantranco were ill-
gotten because, otherwise, these assets would be returned to the government and not to the
employees.
 The Republic presented and formally offered its evidence against herein respondents.
 The latter objected to the offer primarily on the ground that the documents violated the best
evidence rule of the Rules of Court, as these documents were unauthenticated, and the Republic
had not provided any reason for its failure to present the originals.
 The Sandiganbayan admitted the evidence, but the weight shall be determined by the court.
 Imelda, Imee, and Bongbong Marcos, Jr.; Irene and Araneta III; the Yeungs; and the PEA-PTGWO
subsequently filed their respective Demurrers to Evidence, which were all granted by the
Sandiganbayan, except Imelda’s.
Sandiganbayan Ruling:
 The evidence, in particular, exhibits “P,” “Q,” “R,” “S,” and “T,” were considered hearsay, because
their originals were not presented in court, nor were they authenticated by the persons who executed
them. Furthermore, the court pointed out that petitioner failed to provide any valid reason why it
did not present the originals in court. These exhibits were supposed to show the interests of Imee
Marcos-Manotok in the media networks IBC-13, BBC-2 and RPN-9, all three of which she had
 allegedly acquired illegally. These exhibits also sought to prove her alleged participation in dollar
salting through De Soleil Apparel.
 No testimonial or documentary evidence that supported petitioner’s allegations against the couple.
Again, petitioner failed to present the original documents that supposedly supported the allegations
against them. Instead, it merely presented photocopies of documents that sought to prove how the
Marcoses used the Potencianos as dummies in acquiring and operating the bus company Pantranco.
 As far as the Yeungs were concerned, the court found the allegations against them baseless.
Petitioner failed to demonstrate how their business, Glorious Sun Fashion Garments
Manufacturing, Co. Phils. (Glorious Sun), was used as a vehicle for dollar salting; or to show that
they themselves were dummies of the Marcoses. Again, the court held that the documentary
evidence relevant to this allegation was inadmissible for being mere photocopies, and that the
affiants had not been presented as witnesses.
Issue:
Whether the photocopies of the documents presented by the Republic is sufficient to hold the Marcoses,
Araneta, and the Yeungs
Supreme Court Ruling:
It is petitionerÊs burden to prove the allegations in its Complaint. For relief to be granted, the operative act
on how and in what manner the Marcos siblings participated in and/or benefitted from the acts of the Marcos
couple must be clearly shown through a preponderance of evidence. Should petitioner fail to discharge this
burden, the Court is con strained and is left with no choice but to uphold the Demurrer to Evidence filed by
respondents.
First, petitioner does not deny that what should be proved are the contents of the documents
themselves. It is imperative, therefore, to submit the original documents that could prove petitioner’s
allegations.
Thus, the photocopied documents are in violation Rule 130, Sec. 3 of the Rules of Court, otherwise
known as the best evidence rule, which mandates that the evidence must be the original document itself.
Petitioner did not even attempt to provide a plausible reason why the originals were not presented,
or any compelling ground why the court should admit these documents as secondary evidence absent the
testimony of the witnesses who had executed them.
In particular, it may not insist that the photocopies of the documents fall under Sec. 7 of Rule 130.
“Secs. 19 and 20 of Rule 132 provide:
SECTION 19. Classes of documents. For the purpose of their presentation in evidence,
documents are either public or private. Public documents are:
(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority,
official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;
(b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments;
and
(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be
entered therein. All other writings are private.
SECTION 20. Proof of private document. Before any private document offered as authentic is
received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either:
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
 (b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. Any
other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be.”

The fact that these documents were collected by the PCGG in the course of its investigations does
not make them per se public records referred to in the quoted rule.
Petitioner presented as witness its records officer, Maria Lourdes Magno, who testified that these
public and private documents had been gathered by and taken into the custody of the PCGG in the course
of the Commission’s investigation of the alleged ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses. However, given the
purposes for which these documents were submitted, Magno was not a credible witness who could testify
as to their contents. To reiterate, “[i]f the writings have subscribing witnesses to them, they must be proved
by those witnesses.” Witnesses can testify only to those facts which are of their personal knowledge; that
is, those derived from their own perception. Thus, Magno could only testify as to how she obtained custody
of these documents, but not as to the contents of the documents themselves.
Neither did petitioner present as witnesses the affiants of these Affidavits nor Memoranda
submitted to the court. Basic is the rule that, while affidavits may be considered as public documents if they
are acknowledged before a notary public, these Affidavits are still classified as hearsay evidence. The
reason for this rule is that they are not generally prepared by the affiant, but by another one who uses his or
her own language in writing the affiant's statements, parts of which may thus be either omitted or
misunderstood by the one writing them. Moreover, the adverse party is deprived of the opportunity to cross-
examine the affiants. For this reason, affidavits are generally rejected for being hearsay, unless the affiants
themselves are placed on the witness stand to testify thereon.
As to the copy of the TSN of the proceedings before the PCGG, while it may be considered as a
public document since it was taken in the course of the PCGGÊs exercise of its mandate, it was not attested
to by the legal custodian to be a correct copy of the original. This omission falls short of the requirement of
Rule 132, Secs. 24 and 25 of the Rules of Court.
Thus, absent any convincing evidence to hold otherwise, it follows that petitioner failed to prove
that the Marcos siblings and Gregorio Araneta III collaborated with former President Marcos and Imelda
R. Marcos and participated in the first couple’s alleged accumulation of ill-gotten wealth insofar as the
specific allegations herein were concerned.
Nevertheless, the allegations against Yeung Chun Kam, Yeung Chun Ho and Yeung Chun Fan in
the case at bar were also proved to be baseless. Again, petitioner failed to illustrate how respondents herein
acted as dummies of the Marcoses in acquiring ill-gotten wealth. This Court notes that the Complaint
against the Yeungs alleges that the Marcoses used Glorious Sun·the garment company in which the Yeungs
are controlling stockholders·for illegal dollar salting through the companyÊs importation of denim fabrics
from only one supplier at prices much higher than those being paid by other users of similar materials.
Notably, no mention of De Soleil Apparel was made.
To prove its allegations, petitioner submitted the controverted Exhibits “P,” “Q,” “R,” “S,” and
“T.” As earlier discussed in detail, these pieces of evidence were mere photocopies of the originals and
were unauthenticated by the persons who executed them; thus, they have no probative value. Even the
allegations of petitioner itself in its Petition for Review are bereft of any factual basis for holding that these
documents undoubtedly show respondents’ participation in the alleged dollar salting.
As earlier adverted to, the best evidence rule has been recognized as an evidentiary standard since
the 18th century. For three centuries, it has been practiced as one of the most basic rules in law. It is difficult
to conceive that one could have finished law school and passed the bar examinations without knowing such
elementary rule. Thus, it is deeply disturbing that the PCGG and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
the very agencies sworn to protect the interest of the state and its people could conduct their prosecution in
the manner that they did. To emphasize, the PCGG is a highly specialized office focused on the recovery
of ill-gotten wealth, while the OSG is the principal legal defender of the government. The lawyers of these
government agencies are expected to be the best in the legal profession.
However, despite having the expansive resources of government, the members of the prosecution
did not even bother to provide any reason whatsoever for their failure to present the original documents or
the witnesses to support the government’s claims. Even worse was presenting in evidence a photocopy of
the TSN of the PCGG proceedings instead of the original, or a certified true copy of the original, which the
prosecutors themselves should have had in their custody. Such manner of legal practice deserves the reproof
of this Court. We are constrained to call attention to this apparently serious failure to follow a most basic
rule in law, given the special circumstances surrounding this case.