EVIDENCE NOT ADMITTED FOR FAILURE TO SUBMIT IT DURING DISCOVERY

PERIOD
Republic of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan, et
al. G.R. No. 188881; April 21, 2014 Sereno, CJ.

FACTS:
This Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeks to nullify the
Sandiganbayan Resolution in Civil Case No. 0008. The Second Division of the graft
court denied admission of Exhibits "MMM" to "AAAAAAA" in the Formal Offer of
Evidence filed by petitioner Republic.
The Republic, through the PCGG, commenced a complaint for "reconveyance,
reversion, accounting, restitution and damages against Bienvenido R. Tantoco, Jr.
(Tantoco), Dominador R. Santiago (Santiago), Ferdinand E. Marcos, Imelda, R. Marcos,
Bienvenido R. Tantoco, Sr., Gliceria R. Tantoco, and Maria Lourdes Tantoco-Pineda.
Pre-trial commenced and the temporary markings of Exhibits "A" to "LLL" of the
Republic, together with their sub-markings, were adopted. However, over the objections
of respondents Tantoco and Santiago, the PCGG produced and caused the pre-
marking of additional documents, Exhibits "MMM" to "AAAAAAA." Tantoco and
Santiago filed a "Motion under Rule 29 of the Rules of Court," claiming that the
additional documents were never produced at the discovery proceedings and praying
that petitioner be sanctioned for contempt. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion.

Republic filed its formal offer of evidence and the Sandiganbayan initially excluded the
said documents but later partly relented and admitted Exhibits "MMM" to "AAAAAAA."
Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration and granted the motion.
ISSUE:
Should Evidence not produced at the discovery proceedings be admitted?
HELD:
No. It is the purpose and policy of the law that the parties, before the trial if not indeed
even before the pre-trial, should discover or inform themselves of all the facts relevant
to the action, not only those known to them individually, but also those known to
adversaries as set forth in Rules 24 to 29.
The Sandiganbayan clarified in its First Resolution that the defendants’ "Motion Filed under
Rule 29," was but in pursuance of their continuing objection to the marking of evidence not
produced at discovery. The Second Resolution, while issued after petitioner had submitted
its Formal Offer of Evidence, noted that all the documents contained therein were
photocopies. It stated that a mere certification from the Clerk of Court that
they "appear to be the original copy" would not suffice. The Sandiganbayan still
admitted them as evidence, yet the only reason cited for doing so was liberality. The
general rule is that secondary evidence is still not admissible until the non-production of
the primary evidence has been sufficiently accounted for. Nothing on record shows, and
petitioner itself makes no claim, that the Exhibits fall under any of the exceptions to the
Best Evidence rule.
After failing to submit the documentary evidence during discovery, when it was clearly
ordered by both the Sandiganbayan and the Supreme Court to do so, petitioner also
repeatedly failed to prove the due execution and authenticity of the documents.
Hence, the subject documents are not admissible as evidence.