Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.

188881; April 21, 2014

FACTS: The Second Division of the graft court denied admission of Exhibits "MMM" to "AAAAAAA". The
Republic commenced a complaint for "reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages
against Bienvenido Tantoco, Jr et al. Pre-trial commenced and the temporary markings of Exhibits "A" to
"LLL" of the Republic were adopted. However, over the objections of respondents, the PCGG produced
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. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion. 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 should discover or inform themselves
of all the facts relevant to the action. The Sandiganbayan clarified in its First Resolution that the
defendants’ 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. The general rule is that
secondary evidence is still not admissible until the non-production of the primary evidence has been
sufficiently accounted for.