Republic v.
Gimenez to Republic’s failure to file its Formal Offer of Evidence, the court excluded
GR NO. 174673
January 11, 2016
Topic: Offer and Objection
Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines
Respondent Fe and Ignacio Gimenez
By: DPA
FACTS
 The Republic of the Philippines (Republic), through the Philippine Commission
on Good Governance (PCGG) instituted a Complaint for Reconveyance,
Reversion, Accounting, Restitution and Damages against Fe and Ignacio
Gimenez (Spouses Gimenez) before the Sandiganbayan.
 The Complaint seeks to recover ill-gotten wealth allegedly acquired by them
as dummies, agents, or nominees of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos
and Imelda Marcos. During trial, the Republic presented documentary
evidence attesting to the positions held, business interests, income, and
pertinent transactions of the Gimenez Spouses. The Republic presented
several witnesses who testified on the bank accounts and businesses owned
or controlled by them. Thereafter, the Republic then manifested that it was
“no longer presenting further evidence.
 Accordingly, the Sandiganbayan gave the Republic thirty (30) days to file its
formal offer of evidence. The Republic moved for an extension of thirty (30)
days to file its formal offer of evidence. This Motion was granted by the
Sandiganbayan. Subsequently, the Republic moved for an additional fifteen
(15) days within which to file its Formal Offer of Evidence which was likewise
granted by the Sandiganbayan. Following this, no additional motion for
extension was filed by the Republic.
 In the first assailed Resolution , the Sandiganbayan noted that the Republic
failed to file its Formal Offer of Evidence notwithstanding repeated extensions
and the lapse of 75 days from the date it terminated its presentation of
evidence.Thus, it declared that the Republic waived the filing of its Formal
Offer of Evidence.
 Ignacio Gimenez, joined by his wife, Fe, then filed a Motion to Dismiss on
Demurrer to Evidence, arguing that the Republic showed no right to relief as
there was no evidence to support its cause of action and failure to prosecute
  The Republic filed a Motion for Reconsideration [of the first assailed
Resolution] and to Admit Attached Formal Offer of Evidence.
 The Sandiganbayan granted Spouses Gimenez’ Motion to Dismiss on the
ground of Demurrer to Evidence, ratiocinating that the Republic failed to
make a formal offer of evidence despite the extensions of time given to it. Due
several of the exhibits it presented previously.
 According to the court, the reasons invoked by the Republic to justify its
failure to timely file the formal offer of evidence fail to persuade. The missing
exhibits mentioned by the Republic’s counsel appear to be the same missing
documents since 2004, which was almost two (2) years ago.
 It had more than ample time to locate these documents for its purpose. Since
they remain missing after the lapse of the period indicated or given by the
court, there is no reason why the search for these documents should delay
the filing of the formal offer of evidence. Consequently, the Sandiganbayan
considered the Republic to have  waived its right to file its Formal Offer of
Evidence. Also, the court noted that the documentary evidence presented by
the Republic consisted mostly of certified true copies.
 However, the persons who certified the documents as copies of the original
were not presented. Hence, the evidence lacked probative value.
 Aggrieved, the Republic filed the present petition for review on certiorari
before the Supreme Court, assailing, among others, the Sandiganbayan’s
resolution granting the spouses’ Motion to Dismiss on the ground of Demurrer
to Evidence.
ISSUE
WON the Sandiganbayan erred in holding that petitioner Republic of the
Philippines waived the filing of its Formal Offer of Evidence and in granting
respondents Ignacio Gimenez and Fe Roa Gimenez’s Motion to Dismiss on
demurrer to evidence. (Yes)
HELD/RATIO
 Petitioner argues that substantial justice requires doing away with the
procedural technicalities. Loss of vital documentary proof warranted
extensions to file the Formal Offer of Evidence. Honest efforts to locate
several missing documents resulted in petitioner’s inability to file the pleading
within the period granted by the Sandiganbayan.
 Respondent Ignacio Gimenez argues that petitioner cannot fault the
Sandiganbayan for its incompetence during trial. Even if the evidence were
formally offered within the prescribed period, PCGG’s evidence still had no
probative value. It is solely petitioner’s fault "that the persons who certified to
the photocopies of the originals were not presented to testify.
 It is also misleading to argue that the pieces of documentary evidence
presented are public documents"The documents are not public in the sense
that these are official issuances of the Philippine government.""The bulk
consists mainly of notarized, private documents that have simply been
certified true and faithful."
 According to respondent Fe Roa Gimenez, petitioner tries to excuse its non-
filing of the Formal Offer of Evidence within the prescribed period by raising
its efforts to locate the 66 missing documents.However, the issue of the
missing documents was laid to rest during the hearing on November 16, 2004.
 The Sandiganbayan gave petitioner until March 2005 to produce the
documents; otherwise, these would be excluded. The testimonies of the
witnesses related to the missing documents would also be expunged from the
case records.
 Moreover, respondent Fe Roa Gimenez claims that "[t]he Sandiganbayan did
not err when it ruled that the great bulk of the documentary evidence offered
by the PCGG have no probative value."8 Aside from the 66 missing documents
it failed to present, almost all of petitioner’s pieces of documentary evidence
were mere photocopies.The few that were certified true copies were not
testified on by the persons who certified these documents.
 Our Rules of Court lays down the procedure for the formal offer of evidence.
Testimonial evidence is offered "at the time [a] witness is called to
testify." Documentary and object evidence, on the other hand, are offered
"after the presentation of a party’s testimonial evidence."Offer of
documentary or object evidence is generally done orally unless permission is
given by the trial court for a written offer of evidence.
 More importantly, the Rules specifically provides that evidence must be
formally offered to be considered by the court. Evidence not offered is
excluded in the determination of the case. "Failure to make a formal offer
within a considerable period of time shall be deemed a waiver to submit it."
 Rule 132, Section 34 provides:
o SEC. 34. Offer of evidence.— The court shall consider no evidence
which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the
evidence is offered must be specified.
 The rule on formal offer of evidence is intertwined with the constitutional
guarantee of due process. Parties must be given the opportunity to review the
evidence submitted against them and take the necessary actions to secure
their case.Hence, any document or object that was marked for identification is
not evidence unless it was "formally offered and the opposing counsel [was]
given an opportunity to object to it or cross-examine the witness called upon
to prove or identify it."
 This court explained further the reason for the rule:
 The Rules of Court provides that "the court shall consider no evidence which
has not been formally offered." A formal offer is necessary because judges are
mandated to rest their findings of facts and their judgment only and strictly
upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial. Its function is to enable
the trial judge to know the purpose or purposes for which the proponent is
presenting the evidence. On the other hand, this allows opposing parties to
examine the evidence and object to its admissibility. Moreover, it facilitates
review as the appellate court will not be required to review documents not
previously scrutinized by the trial court.
 To consider a party’s evidence which was not formally offered during trial
would deprive the other party of due process. Evidence not formally offered
has no probative value and must be excluded by the court.
 Petitioner’s failure to file its written Formal Offer of Evidence of the
numerous documentary evidence presented within the prescribed period is
a non-issue. In its first assailed Resolution dated May 25, 2006, the
Sandiganbayan declared that petitioner waived the filing of its Formal Offer
of Evidence when it failed to file the pleading on May 13, 2006, the deadline
based on the extended period granted by the court. Petitioner was granted
several extensions of time by the Sandiganbayan totalling 75 days from the
date petitioner terminated its presentation of evidence. Notably, this 75-day
period included the original 30-day period. Subsequently, petitioner filed a
Motion for Reconsideration and to Admit Attached Formal Offer of Evidence,
and the Formal Offer of Evidence.
 In resolving petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration and to Admit Attached
Formal Offer of Evidence, the Sandiganbayan found the carelessness of
petitioner’s counsel unacceptable. According to the Sandiganbayan, it could
not countenance the non-observance of the court’s orders.
 This court has long acknowledged the policy of the government to recover
the assets and properties illegally acquired or misappropriated by former
President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his wife Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos, their close
relatives, subordinates, business associates, dummies, agents or nominees.
 Hence, this court has adopted a liberal approach regarding technical rules of
procedure in cases involving recovery of ill-gotten wealth:
constitute the thing itself which courts are always striving to secure
to litigants. It is designed as the means best adapted to obtain that
thing. In other words, it is a means to an end. It is the means by
which the powers of the court are made effective in just judgments.
When it loses the character of the one and takes on that of the
other the administration of justice becomes incomplete and
unsatisfactory and lays itself open to grave criticism."

 To be clear, petitioner was able to file its Formal Offer of Evidence, albeit,  Furthermore, "subsequent and substantial compliance may call for the
belatedly. Petitioner hurdled 19 years of trial before the Sandiganbayan to relaxation of the rules of procedure.
present its evidence as shown in its extensive Formal Offer of Evidence. As
petitioner argues:  Weighing the amount of time spent in litigating the case against the number
of delays petitioner incurred in submitting its Formal Offer of Evidence and the
 Undeniable from the records of the case is that petitioner was vigorous in state’s policy on recovering ill-gotten wealth, this court is of the belief that it is
prosecuting the case. The most tedious and crucial stage of the litigation and but only just that the Rules be relaxed and petitioner be allowed to submit its
presentation of evidence has been accomplished. Petitioner completed its written Formal Offer of Evidence. The Sandiganbayan’s Resolutions should be
presentation of evidence proving the ill-gotten nature and character of the reversed.
funds and assets sought to be recovered in the present case.
Petition Granted
 It presented vital testimonial and documentary evidence consisting of
voluminous record proving the gross disparity of the subject funds to spouses
Gimenezes’ combined declared income which must be reconveyed to the
Republic for being acquired in blatant violation of the Constitution and the
Anti-Graft statutes.

 This court is not unmindful of the difficulty in gathering voluminous

documentary evidence in cases of forfeiture of ill-gotten wealth acquired
throughout the years. It is never easy to prosecute corruption and take back
what rightfully belongs to the government and the people of the Republic.

 Rules of procedure should not be applied in a very rigid, technical case as they
are devised chiefly to secure and not defeat substantial justice.

 Despite the intervening years, the language of the Court in Manila Railroad Co.
vs. Attorney-General, still remains relevant:

o "The purpose of procedure is not to thwart justice. Its proper aim is

to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of
contending parties. It was created not to hinder and delay but to
facilitate and promote the administration of justice. It does not