Republic vs Benedicto, et al.
,
August 15, 2019
(Sandiganbayan Case)
Before the Court is a Complaint for reconveyance,
reversion, accounting, restitution, and damages filed by the
Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Presidential
Commission on Good Government (PCGG)
The PCGG harped on the premise that "Benedicto took undue
advantage of his relationship, influence, and connection,
acting by himself and/ or in unlawful concert with defendants
Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos, with the active
collaboration, knowledge and willing participation of the rest
of the defendants embarked upon devices, schemes and
stratagems to unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of
the Republic of the Philippines and the Filipino people."
In relation to the evidentiary substantiation requirement,
it bears stressing that actions for reconveyance, revision,
accounting, restitution, and damages for ill-gotten wealth are
also called civil forfeiture proceedings. As in all civil cases,
the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish his case by
preponderance of evidence.203 Section 1, Rule 133 of the
Revised Rules of Court provides the guidelines In determining
preponderance of evidence.
SECTION 1. Preponderance of evidence, how
determined. In civil cases, the party having the
burden of proof must establish his case by a
preponderance of evidence. In determining where
the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on
the issues involved lies, the court may consider all
the facts and circumstances of the case, the
witnesses manner of testifying, their intelligence,
their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to
which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to
which they testify, the probability or improbability of
their testimony, their interest or want of interest,
and also their personal credibility so far as the same
may legitimately appear upon the trial. The court
may also consider the number of witnesses, though
the preponderance is not necessarily with the
greater number.
Thus, the question for the Court is whether the Republic
was able to adduce sufficient evidence to prove that the
properties sought to be recovered are in truth ill-gotten and
that
the defendants, by virtue of their position, close association
or
relation with President Marcos and/or his wife, accumulated
wealth by illegal means.
In its Memorandum, the plaintiff lll~~.u/ated
remaining defendants in the instant case.
To prove that DBP, through defendants, granted huge
1
loans to Aklan Bulk Carriers, Inc., Fuga Bulk Carriers, Inc.
Coron Bulk Carriers, Inc., and Ecija Bulk Carriers, Inc., the
plaintiff offered in evidence the following: (1) Resolution No.
2125 dated July 26, 1978 (Minutes No. 31, July 26, 1978);205
(2) Statement of Account of Aklan Bulk Carriers, Inc.;206 (3)
Certification of Obligation of Fuga Bulk Carriers, Inc.;207 (4)
Statement of Account of Fuga Bulk Carriers, Inc.;208(5) Letter
of Lutgarda Peralta to Atty. Jaime Cabrera.w? and (6)
Certifications issued by the Corporate Secretary on Exhibits
"Q" and "H
Preliminarily, it is worthy to note that what was presented
in Court was a mere photocopy of Resolution No. 2125
(Exhibit
"A")which bears the notation "Certified Copy" (Exhibit "A-5")
only on the last page thereof. Section 7, Rule 130 of the
Rules. of Court states that when the original of a document is
in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public
office, as in this case, the contents of said document may be
proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in
custody thereof.
More so, Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court
mandates that the copy must be attested by the officer
having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy. Here,
Corporate Secretary Cecilia M. Dimaguiba, the person who
certified the last page of Resolution No. 2125 as copy of the
original, was not presented in court. Instead, plaintiff
presented Atty. Eduardo Esteva who testified that he was
instructed to represent Cecilia Dimaguiba. While the Court is
not unmindful of these technical rules, it shall relax the same
so as not to defeat substantial justice.
Absent any evidence proving that defendants Sison, Mapa,
Jr., Ferry and Tengco, Jr., in collaboration with defendants
Roberto S. Benedicto, Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R.
Marcos, embarked upon devices, schemes and stratagems in
approving a loan accommodation in favor of Aklan, Coron,
Ecija and Fuga Bulk Carriers, Inc. to the prejudice of the
Republic, the Court is left with no choice but to dismiss the
Complaint against them.
Defendants, on the other hand, pointed out that although
the Affidavit was submitted by Ramon Monzon during the
proceedings before the PCGG as part of his cooperation with
the latter, the one presented in court was a mere photocopy
and not properly identified.
The rules mandate that the original document must be
presented during trial when the subject of the inquiry is the
contents of the document, save for certain cases. Section 3,
Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides, to wit:
1. Best Evidence Rule
SEC. 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions.
- When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a
document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the
original document itself, except in the following cases:
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or
cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the
part of the offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the
control of the party against whom the evidence is offered,
and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or
other documents which cannot be examined in court
without great loss of time and the fact sought to be
established from them is only the general result of the
whole; and
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of
a public officer or is recorded in a public office.
In case of unavailability of the original document, Sections
5 to 7 of the same Rule allows the presentation of secondary
evidence:
SEC. 5. When original document is unavailable.- When
the original document has been lost or destroyed, or
cannot be produced in court, th€ offeror, upon proof of
its execution or existence and the cause of its
unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove
its contentsby a copy,or by a recitalof its contentsy
some authentic document, or by the testimony of
witnesses in the order stated.
SEC. 6. When original document is in adverse party's
custody or control. - If the document is in the custody
or under the control of adverse party, he must have
reasonable notice to produce it. If after such notice and
after satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails to produce
the document, secondary evidence may be presented as
in the case of its loss. (Sa)
SEC. 7. Evidence admissible when original document is
a public record.- When the original of a document is in
the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public
office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy
issued by the public officer in custody thereof.
Alternatively, the Court observes that the plaintiff failed to
prove: (1) the existence or due execution of the original; (2)
the· loss and destruction of the original or the reason for its
non-production in court; and (3) on the part of the offeror,
the absence of bad faith to which the unavailability of the
original can be attributed.u+ The Court is also of the
impression that Lourdes Magno, the legal custodian of the
document under inquiry, has no knowledge of the
whereabouts of the original. During her cross-examination.
More so, jurisprudence dictates that an affidavit is
classified as hearsay evidence if not properly authenticated
and identified by the affiant or maker.216 Here, the affidavit
was not identified and its contents were not affirmed by
2
affiant Ramon Monzon. Notably, the procedural flaw was also
not cured by the fact
that defendant Monzon also offered in evidence the very
same Affidavit marked as Exhibit" 16" since it was still not
identified and authenticated by the affiant. Consequently,
while the Affidavit of Ramon Monzon was previously
admitted in evidence by the Court, the same cannot be
accorded probative weight and value.
Plaintiff also failed to illustrate how defendants acted as
dummies of Imelda Marcos in acquiring ill-gotten wealth. It
must be recalled that in civil cases, the party having the
burden of proof must produce a preponderance of evidence
thereon, with plaintiff having to rely on the strength of its
own evidence and not upon the weakness of the defendant's.
The Republic failed to discharge this burden. In this regard,
the Court need not even pass upon the defense proffered by
the defendants as there is nothing in the evidence that tilts
the scales against them.
For failure of the plain tiff to prove by preponderance of
evidence the allegations in its Amended Complaint, the Court
is constrained to dismiss the Complaint against defendants
Monzon, Olazo, Cheong and Nograles.
To backtrack, the shares of Benedicto in Califomia
Overseas Bank were the subject of a plea-bargaining
agreementapproved by the NewYork Court and a Settlement
and Partial Release of Claims approved by the California Court
of Los Angeles.223It can be fairly deduced therefrom that the
turnover of Benedicto's share was never intended to cover
the liability, if any, of his co-defendant/ s, unless the latter is/
are included as beneficiary in the subsequent Compromise
Agreement. At any rate, the Court finds the evidence
presented by the plaintiff insufficient to establish its claim
against defendant Arambulo. To substantiate its claim,
plaintiff presented and offered in evidence the following: [L]
Articles of Incorporation of California Overseas Bank224;(2)
By-Laws of California Overseas Bank225; (3) Letter dated June
10, 1996 of Superintendent of Banks,
State of California="; and (4) Approval to acquire dated June
9, 1996 227.These exhibits were supposed to prove that
California Overseas Bank was used by former President'
Marcos as a conduit bank for dollar salting and that
defendants Roberto. Benedicto, Domindador Pangilinan and
Pagasa San Agustin acquired control over the California
Overseas Bank. Again, the Court is confronted with certified
xerox copies of documentary exhibits allegedly on file in the
PCGG library. Although iinmaterial and irrelevant as regards
defendants Monzon, Cheong, Nograles, Olazo, the Court
notes that they interposed their objection to these exhibits'
admissibility for being violative of the best evidence rule. The
Court, nonetheless, admitted these exhibits in evidence
subject to the determination of their probative weight.
As discussed above, documents gathered by the PCGG in
the course of its investigations does not make such
documents per se public records exempt from the
applicability of the best evidence rule. In view of the purposes
for which Exhibits "I", "J", "L" and "L-l" were being offered, it
is incumbent upon the plaintiff to present the original copies
of such documents.

The court saddens the Court that it took more than thirty
(30) years before this case is submitted for decision and yet,
the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to
sustain any of the causes of action against the remaining
defendants. It is settled that in civil cases, the party making
allegations has the burden of proving them by a
preponderance of evidence. In addition, the parties must rely
on the strength of their own evidence, not upon the
weakness of the defense offered by their
opponent. 229

WHEREFORE, premises considered, for failure of the

plaintiff to prove by preponderance of evidence any of the
causes of action against defendants Ferdinand E. Marcos,
Imelda Marcos, Rafael Sison, Placido Mapa, Jr., Don M. Ferry,
Jose R. Tengco, Jr., Ramon Monzon, Generosa C. Olazo,
Cynthia Cheong, Ma. Luisa E. Nograles, Leopolda Vergara,
Jose L. Africa and Rodolfo Arambulo, the case against them is
hereby.

DISMISSED SO ORDERED