Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • H - Civil - 0034 - People Vs Benedicto, Et Al - 08 - 05 - 2019 PDF

    Uploaded by

    Honey
    17 views67 pages

    Original Title

    H_Civil_0034_People vs Benedicto, et al_08_05_2019.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    17 views67 pages

    H - Civil - 0034 - People Vs Benedicto, Et Al - 08 - 05 - 2019 PDF

    Uploaded by

    Honey

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 67
    Republic of the Philippines SANDIGANBAYAN Quezon City SECOND DIVISION REPUBLIC OF THE CIVIL. CASE NO. 0034 PHILIPPINES, For: Reconveyance, Plaintiff, Reversion, Accounting, Restitution, Damages Present: -versus- Herrera, Jr., J. Chairperson Musngi, J. & Pahimna, J. Promulgated: ROBERTO §. BENEDICTO, ET AL., Datos se oot Sa Defendants. DECISION PAHIMNA, J.: 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), on July 31, 1987 against Roberto S. Benedicto (“Benedicto”), Hector T. Rivera (“H. Rivera”), Ferdinand E. Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos, Julita Benedicto (“J. Benedicto”), Lourdes Rivera (“L. Rivera”), Miguel V. Gonzales (“Gonzales”), Pag-Asa San Agustin (“San Agustin’), Bennet Thelmo (“Thelmo’), Jose L. Africa (“Africa”), Exequiel B. Garcia (“Garcia”), Rocio R. Torres (“Torres”), Marciano Benedicto (‘M, Benedicto”?, Romulo Benedicto (“R. Benedicto”), Zacarias Amante (“Amante”), Francisca C. Benedicto (“F. Benedicto”), Jose Montalvo (“Montalvo”), Jesus Martinez “(Martinez”), Nestor Mata (“Mata”), Alberto Velez (“Velez”), Richard de Leon (“de Leon’), Zapiro Tanpinco (“Tanpinco’), Leopoldo Vergara (‘Vergara’), Dominador Pangilinan (‘Pangilinan”), Rodolfo Arambulo (“Arambulo”), Rafael Sison (“Sison”), Placido Mapa, Jr, ~ 1 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1-52 2 Pasded away on January 9, 1988 W Decision Republic vs. Benedicto, Et Al Civil Case No. 0034 Page 2 of 67 x (‘Mapa’), Cesar C. Zalamea (“Zalamea’), Don M. Ferry (“Ferry”), Jose R. Tengco, Jr. (“Tengco”), Ramon Monzon (“Monzon’), Generosa C. Olazo (“Olazo”), Cynthia Cheong (“Cheong”), and Ma. Luisa E. Nograles (“Nograles”). 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.” On August 20, 1987, plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint dated August 12, 1987 to implead Roman Cruz, Jr. (‘Cruz’) as additional defendant, which was admitted by the Court in a Resolution dated August 21, 1987.5 Without abondoning its consistent position on the sufficiency of the allegations in the Amended Complaint and pursuant to the Order of the Court to expand or otherwise make more specific certain allegations in the Complaint, the plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (Expanded per Court-Approved Plaintiff's Manifestation dated December 8, 1987)°. Later on, the Court, acting on the Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Expanded Per Court-Approved Plaintiffs Manifestaion /Motion dated December 8, 1987) and to Admit Such Amended Complaint dated September 28, 1988, granted the same on November 16, 1988 to include Puerto Azul Ocean Villas Condominium Corporation in Annex “A” thereof. FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS Upon filing of the complaint and service of summons, several defendants filed their respective motions for extension of time to file responsive pleading, which were all granted by the Court. Thereafter, defendants filed their respective motions for bill of particulars. Defendants Monzon, Cheong, Nograles and Olaza, through counsel, filed a Voluntary Submission to, > Records, Vol 1, p. 19 41d, pp. 109-160, 51d, p. 373 61d, Yol. 3, pp. 135-193 Decision Republic vs. Benedicto, Et Al Civil Case No. 0034 Page 3 of 67 x Jurisdiction and Motion for Bill of Particulars? on September 16, 1987 while defendant Africa filed a Motion for a Bill of Particulars’ on September 25, 1987. On October 22, 1987, defendant Zalamea filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars®. On. even date, defendant Cruz filed an Omnibus Motion consisting in the alternative of Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, Motion to Strike Out Averments in the Complaint and Motion for Bill of Particulars’. Taking into consideration the Opposition! filed by the plaintiff on December 4, 1982, the Court issued a Resolution!? dated September 1, 1988, denying defendant Cruz’ Omnibus Motion. Defendant M. Benedicto, et al.!$ filed their Motion for Bill of Particulars on October 27, 1987 while defendant Imelda Marcos filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars!* on November 13, 1992. On August 25, 1987, defendant Ferry filed an Omnibus Motion!5 which secks the dismissal of the case against him. The same drew an Opposition’ from the plaintiff. The Court, by way of Resolution!” dated August 2, 1988, denied the said Omnibus Motion. On September 14, 1987, defendant Thelmo filed, through counsel, his Answer with Counterclaim’, Plaintiff filed a Reply"? thereto on October 20, 1987. Defendant Thelmo filed his Amended Answer with Counterclaim” on June 13, 1989, which was admitted by the Court in a Resolution?! dated July 21, 1989. On October 2, 1987, defendant Tengco filed his Answer (With Compulsory Counterclaim and Cross-Claim)?. On November 20, 1987, defendant Rafael Sison also fee 71d, Vol. 1, pp. 312-314 * Id, pp. 429-465 9d, Vol. 2, pp. 648-653 101d, pp. 658-682 141d, Vol. 1, pp. 935-955 221d, Vol. 5, pp. 288-295 18 Gonzales, Garcia, Mata, Martinez, H. Rivera, L, Rivera, San Agustin, Tanpinco, Torres and Velez 4 Records, Vol. 13, pp. 3051-3057 15 1d, Vol. 1, pp. 180-196 16 Id, Vol. 2, pp. 801-810 Id, Vol. |. 196-200 18 Id, Vol. - 288-293 19 Id, Vol. . 627-635 29 [d, Vol. 6, pp. 169-177 211d, p. 249 221d, Vol. 2, pp. 556-565, Decision Republic vs. Benedicto, Et Al. Civil Case No. 0034 Page 4 of 67 x Answer, Defendants Monzon, Olazo, Cheong and Nograles, through counsel, filed their Answer?# on May 17, 1988 while defendant Ferry filed his Answer with Counterclaim? on September 27, 1988. On October 6, 1988, defendants Amante, et al.,26 filed their Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim Ex Abundanti Cautela.2” Defendant Cruz, Jr., on the other hand, filed his Answer Ad Cautelam?5 on October 7, 1988. Defendant Africa also filed his Answer? on November 2, 1988. In turn, plaintiff filed the corresponding Reply to the aforementioned pleadings filed by the defendants. On June 26, 1989, the Court issued a Resolution®® declaring defendants Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos in default for their failure to file their answer to the above-entitled case. In a Resolution’! dated November 24, 1989, the Court affirmed the declaration of default of defendants Marcoses and on December 5, 1989, the Court designated Imelda R. Marcos as the legal representative of the deceased Ferdinand E. Marcos*2. The Order of Default dated April 6, 1989 was lifted and set aside by the Court in a Resolution%* dated October 26, 1992. As such, defendant Imelda R. Marcos was able to file her Answer with Counterclaim3* on September 6, 1995, Plaintiff filed its Reply and Answer to Counterclaim®> on December 11, 1995. Several motions for intervention were also filed before the Court. On November 2, 1988, Holiday Inn (Phils.), Inc. filed a Motion for Intervention®® and Complaint-in-Intervention*? alleging therein that it has an existing Management Contract and Technical Assistance and Management Agreement with New Riveria Development Company, Inc. Among the assets 214, pp. 8 24 Id, Vol. 4, pp. 92-105 25 Id, Vol. 5, pp. 376-388 4a» Francisca Paulino, Marciano Benedicto, Exequiel Garcia, Miguel Gonzales, Jesus Martinez, Nestor Mata, Jose Montalvo, Hector Rivera, Lourdes Rivera, Pagasa San ‘Agustin, Zafiro Tanpinco, Rocio Torres and Alberto Velez 27 Records, Vol. 5, pp. 405-424 28 Id, pp. 450-457 2 Id, pp. 488-518 80d, Vol. 6, pp. 184-199 81d, Vol. 7, pp. 170-184 21d, p. 195 33 1d, Vol. 12, pp. 2953-2980 Md, Vol. 16, pp. 4893-4914 45 Id, Vol. 17, pp. 5090-5092 s6 1d, Vol 1-A, pp. 1-4 \ Id, Decision Republic vs. Benedicto, Et Al. Civil Case No. 0034 Page 5 of 67 x subjected to sequestration by the PCGG is the stockholdings of Benedicto in the latter company. Defendant-in-intervention New Riviera Hotel and Development Co., Inc. filed its Opposition®*, through counsel, on November 9, 1988. On same date, movant-in-intervention filed a Memorandum®? in support of its Motion for Intervention and prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction embodied in its Complaint-in- Intervention. Plaintiff also filed its Opposition to the Motion for Intervention*? on even date. In a Resolution*! promulgated on November 11, 1988, the Court denied the Motion for Intervention of Holiday Inn (Phils.), Inc. Later on, the Supreme Court upheld the denial of the motion to intervene in a Decision‘? dated June 8, 1990. On January 15, 1988, ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (ABS-CBN), Chronicle Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and Monserrat Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene as Plaintiffs‘? attaching therein their Complaint-in-Intervention.** Movants alleged that they were among the victims of the unlawful acts of the defendants as specifically alleged in paragraph 15 (6) (i) of the Complaint. More particularly, the facilities of movants were used and abused by the defendants as instruments of oppression. Plaintiff filed its Opposition*s thereto on January 26, 1988 while defendants Torres, Gonzales, Garcia, Mata, Martinez, H. Rivera, L. Rivera, San Agustin, Tanpinco, Velez and Amante filed their Opposition*® on February 11, 1988. In turn, movants filed their Reply*” on February 22, 1988. The Court initially granted the motion and admitted the complaint-in-intervention in a Resolution*® dated June 3, 1988. However, during the pendency of the case, the PCGG and Benedicto, et al. entered into a Compromise Agreement whereby Benedicto undertook to cede to the government certain properties, rights and/or interests he may have over particular corporate assets. In view thereof, the Court issued a Resolut ee 38 Id, pp. 68-80 2 Id, pp. 81-98 © Id, pp. 101-109 afd, pp. 142-149 42 Id, Vol. 7, pp. 489-500-A 48 Id, Vol. 3, pp. 86-92 “Id, pp. 93-113 *9 Id, pp. 196-205 “1d, pp. 275-262 "Id, pp. 305~ +8 Id, Vpl. 4, pp. ‘4-179 Decision Republic vs. Benedicto, Et Al Civil Case No. 0034 Page 6 of 67 x dated October 2, 1992 granting the Joint Motion to Approve Compromise Agreement and directing the parties to the intervention proceedings to take such appropriate steps.#? The Supreme Court upheld the Court’s ruling and declared that the rights of the intervenors can be fully protected in a separate proceeding.5° On August 1, 1988, Vicenta F. Escano-Moran, Russel Leo Moran, Robert Leo Moran and Susan Mary Moran filed a Motion for Intervention with attached Complaint-In-Intervention.®! The proposed complaint-in-intervention was earlier filed as a civil case in the Regional Trial Court of Malaybalay, Bukidnon and sought the annulment of the sale and assignment of all shares of stocks of Escano Hermanos, Inc. in favor of defendants Ferdinand Marcos, Benedicto, Manuel Nieto and Africa, as well as the sale of a portion of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-4297 in favor of Bukidnon Sugar Milling Co., Inc. Universal Equity Corporation also moved to intervene in the instant case but only for the purpose of the recovery of its wrongfully /erroneously sequestered aircraft.5? Plaintiff filed its Comment and/or Opposition®® on April 10, 1992. The Court resolved to grant the Motion to Intervene in a Resolution’* promulgated on July 9, 1992. On July 4, 1995, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) filed a Motion for Leave to File Complaint-in-Intervention (with Manifestation).5° Defendants Benedicto et al., filed an Opposition to DAR’s Motion for Intervention®® on July 26, 1995, and on August 21, 1995, defendants Benedicto filed a Supplemental Opposition To DAR’s Motion for Intervention.®” The Court, in a Resolution®’ promulgated on August 28, 1995, merely took note of the motion for leave to file complaint-in- intervention and declared the incident terminated in view of the Manifestation®? filed by the DAR. In a subsequent oe #9 Id, Vol. 12, pp. 2819-2883 50 Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 108292, 108368, 108548-49, 108550 51 Id, Vol. 5, pp. 146-166 52 Id, Vol. 11, pp. 2293-2297 50 Id, pp. 2323-2331 54 Id, pp. 2429-2449 55 Id, Vol. 16, pp. 4737-4748 86 Id, pp. 4767-4773 St Id, pp. 4798-4800 88 Id, pp. 4846-4847 21d, pp 4801-3808 Stapp S008 3012 \\ Decision Republic vs. Benedicto, Et Al. Civil Case No. 0034 Page 7 of 67 se promulgated on October 25, 1995, the Court denied the motion of the DAR for leave to intervene in the case at bar for lack of merit. Movants-in-intervention Jose Ma. B. Montinola et al.°!, filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene and Admit Memorandum in Intervention on November 13, 1992°2, raising therein that by virtue of Republic Act No. 7202, the sequestered assets, or a substantial portion thereof, should be deemed to have been illegally taken from the sugar industry during the 10 year period provided in R.A. No. 7202 which should be distributed to the sugar producers on a pro rata basis. In a Resolution promulgated on January 14, 1993, the Court denied the Motion for Intervention for being moot and academic by supervening events.©? The same was sustained by the Supreme Court in a Decision dated September 10, 1993.5 Far East Managers and Investors Inc. (FEMII) filed a Motion for Special Intervention (to Join Defendant Benedicto’s Motion for Reconsideration dated February 20, 1998)°% which drew an Opposition®® from the plaintiff, praying for the exclusion of all of FEMII’s corporate shareholdings in RPN-9 from those ordered for cancellation or cession to the plaintiff. FEMII filed its Reply®’ dated April 23, 1998. In a Resolution®® promulgated on July 30, 1999, the Court denied the Motion for Special Intervention ratiocinating therein that the same was belatedly filed and not expressly allowed by the Rules. On November 26, 1990, the PCGG and Benedicto, et al., filed a Joint Motion to Approve Compromise Agreement with attached Compromise Agreement dated November 3, 1990.59 Benedicto undertook to cede to the government properties listed in Annex “A” thereof and transfer to the government whatever tights and/or interests he may have over all corporate assets listed in Annex “B” thereof. For its part, the PCGG agreed to lift the sequestration over the assets listed in Annex “C” and to 61 Romeo G. Guanzon, Hortensia L, Starke, Vicente Lopez, Jr., Manuel Escalante, Roman M. Mirasol, Jesus T. Taleon, Jesus S. Montero, Rodolfo T. Tongson, Jr., Pablo G. Lim, Julio Ledesma, Central Azucarera Don Pesdro, San Carlos Milling Co., Inc, 6 Records, Vol. 13, pp. 3058-307 6 Id, pp. 3355-3365 98 GIR, No, 108548, September 10, 1993 65 Records, Vol. 20, pp. 6644-6650 6 Id, p. 6726 67 Id, p. 6755-6761 8 Id, pp. 7406-7408 ©9 Id, Vol. 8, pp. 546-561 Decision Republic vs. Benedicto, Et Al Civil Case No. 0034 Page 8 of 67 xe extend absolute immunity to Benedicto, the members of his family, officers and employees of his corporations, who are included in past, present and future cases and investigations of the government. The OSG filed an Opposition’? thereto on November 29, 1990. Plaintiffs-intervenors ABS-CBN and MBS, through counsel, also filed their Opposition’! to the Joint Motion on December 17, 1990. Thereafter, the PCGG filed its Reply”? to the OSG’s Opposition on December 21, 1990 while defendant Benedicto filed his Comment’ on OSG’s Opposition on December 22, 1990. Defendants Julita C. Benedicto, et al., filed a Manifestation and Motion’ in joining the PCGG and defendant Benedicto in praying for the approval of the Compromise Agreement on December 28, 1990. On even date, defendant Garcia, through counsel, also filed _ his Manifestation’>. On February 26, 1991, the OSG submitted a Memorandum’? while defendant Benedicto filed a Reply?” to plaintiffs-intervenors ABS-CBN and MBS’ Opposition. Several pleadings were filed to defer the resolution of the Joint Motion. As discussed in passing above, the Court granted the Joint Motion to Approve Compromise Agreement in a Resolution’ promulgated on October 2, 1992. Accordingly, the parties were enjoined to observe strict and faithful compliance with the terms thereof, to wit: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant “Joint Motion To Approve Compromise”, dated November 22, 1990, is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, finding the “Compromise Agreement”, together with its annexes, executed on November 3, 1990 between the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the PCGG, and defendant Roberto S. Benedicto to be in order and the same not being contrary to law, morals or public policy, the same is hereby APPROVED, and judgment is hereby rendered in accordance therewith. The parties thereto are, therefore, enjoined to observe strict and faithful compliance with the terms thereof. 701d, pp. 71d, pp. 7214, pp. 73 1d. pp. 101d, pp. 751d, BP. 71d, pp. 7 Id, pp. “tidy ‘pp. 2817-2883 \ Decision Republic vs. Benedicto, Et Al Civil Case No. 0034 Page 9 of 67 Xe Consequently, the “Manifestation”, dated July 24, 1992, and “Motion Ad Cautelam”, dated July 15, 1992, filed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and defendant Imelda R. Marcos, respectively, are hereby deemed moot and academic, and with respect to all intervention proceedings, reservation is granted to all the parties involved therein to take such appropriate steps after the instant resolution shall have attained finality in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 3, sub- paragraph (c) of the Compromise Agreement. SO ORDERED. On November 3, 1992, defendant Benedicto and the other defendants included in the Compromise Agreement dated November 3, 1990 moved for the entry of judgment.”9 The PCGG filed a Motion for Reconsideration on October 21, 1992 and defendant Benedicto filed a Memorandum re Opposition to PCGG’s Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Entry of Judgment on November 26, 1992.89 In a Resolution promulgated on December 10, 1992, the Court denied the plaintiff's Motion for Reconsidcration.®! On January 27, 1993, plaintiff filed an Opposition to defendant Benedicto’s Motion for Entry of Judgment and Execution.8? Acting on the Urgent Ex-Parte Supplemental Motion for the Entry of Judgment and Execution filed by defendants Benedicto, et al., the Court resolved to grant the same in a Resolution promulgated on March 8, 1993 and directed the entry of final judgment and execution with respect to the Resolutions promulgated on October 2, 1992 and December 10, 1992.8 On March 23, 1993, the Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order and ordered the Sandiganbayan to cease and desist from enforcing and executing its resolutions promulgated on October 2, 1992, December 10, 1992 and March 8, 1993, particularly from executing the Compromise Agreement or from taking any step, action or proceeding that will amount to the total or partial execution or carrying out of the Agreement and from implementing or carrying out poo Jd, Vol. 13, pp. 3008-3012 0 Id, pp. 3266-3281 81 Id, pp. 3371-3384 36-3392, Decision Republic vs. Benedicto, Et Al. Civil Case No. 0034 Page 10 of 67 _ Resolution dated March 8, 1993.8 In Republic vs. Sandiganbayan®®, the Supreme Court lifted the restraining orders and ordered the parties to the compromise agreement to comply strictly with the terms thereof, viz: WHEREFORE, the petitions in G.R. No. 108292, 108368, 108548-49, and 108550 are hereby dismissed. The restraining orders issued in the respective cases dated March 10, 1993, March 23, 1993, and March 24, 1993, are hereby lifted and the parties to the compromise agreement are ordered to comply strictly with the terms thereof. Acting on the Motion for Execution of Judgment and Issuance of Passport ® filed by Benedicto on November 11, 1993 as well as the Opposition*” filed by the plaintiff on December 3, 1993, the Court directed the entry of final judgment and execution with respect to a prior Resolution promulgated on October 2, 1992 approving the Compromise Agreement in a Resolution®’ dated December 22, 1993. The Administrator of. the Intestate Estate of the Late Roberto S. Benedicto filed a Motion for Execution®? on December 6, 2010, which was granted by the Court in a Resolution® promulgated on December 14, 2010 It is worthy to note that several defendants benefitted from the Compromise Agreement dated November 3, 1990, thus: WHEREAS, this Compromise Agreement covers the remaining claims and cases of the Philippine Government against Roberto S. Benedicto, including his associates and nominees, namely: Julita C. Benedicto, Hector T. Rivera, Lourdes V. Rivera, Miguel V. Gonzales, Pag-Asa San Agustin (Deceased), Rocio B. Torres, Marciano Benedicto (Deceased), Romulo Benedicto, Francisca C. Benedicto, Richard de Leon, Jose Montalvo, Jesus Martinez, Nestor Mata, Alberto Velez, Zafiro Tanpinco, Dominador Pangilinan (Deceased), Mariano del Mundo and Zacarias so 8 Jd, Vol. 14, pp. 3533-3535 88 1d, pp. 3771-3798; G.R. Nos. 108292, 108368, 108548-49, 108550 a Id, pp. 3849-3860 arid, pp. 3887-3891 88 Id, pp 3937-3941 ® Id, Vol. 30, pp. 14,242-14,261 *” i 14,264-14,266 W Decision Republic vs. Benedicto, Et Al Civil Case No. 0034 Page 11 of 67 Other defendants were also dropped from the present case. As early as September 30, 1987, plaintiff moved! to drop Pangilinan as party-defendant in the instant case which was granted by the Court on October 11, 1988.9? The Resolution reads as follows: ‘There having been neither comment nor opposition to the dismissal of the Complaint as against the deceased Dominador R. Pangilinan by reason of his demise, despite notice thereof having been sent more than a year ago to co-defendants sought to be held solidarily liable with him for claims therein made, plaintiffs Motion to drop defendant Pangilinan is granted. On March 26, 1991, the plaintiff filed a Motion to drop defendant Thelmo as party defendant’. In a Resolution’ promulgated on July 12, 1991, the Court reconsidered its initial Resolution dated April 4, 1991 and resolved to drop defendant Thelmo as party defendant in the case following a re- investigation and re-evaluation that Thelmo is not financially connected or related to defendant Benedicto nor former Ferdinand E. Marcos or Imelda R. Marcos, either as nominee, agent, stockholder, incorporator or officer, to wit: WHEREFORE, as prayed for, the Motion for Reconsideration is granted, the Resolution of April 4, 1991 set aside, and a new one issued dropping Benett Ll. ‘Thelmo as party defendant from the Expanded Second Amended Complaint and dismissing all _his counterclaims thereto. No costs. SO ORDERED. On February 24, 1994, defendant Zalamea filed a Motion to Dismiss®5 on the ground that the claim or demand against him has been paid, waived or otherwise extinguished in view of the execution of the Compromise Agreement. On May 13, 1994, plaintiff filed an Oppo: ion®®, contending therein that the act of cession by Benedicto did not extinguish the liabilities, if any, of the other defendants who paid nothing to the plaintiff, In a Resolution? promulgated on November 2, 1995, the ge a pp. 512-514 (passed away on September 20, 1987) 465 jp. 888-890 yp. 1055-1062 95 fd, Vol. 15, pp. 4077-4080 96 Id, Vol. 16, pp. 4594-4596 or iat po. 8033-5047 \n 91 Id, Vol. 2 ®2 1d, Vol 93 Id, Vol. 94 Id, Vol Decision Republic vs. Benedicto, Et Al. Civil Case No. 0034 Page 12 of 67 x granted defendant Zalamea’s motion and ordered the dismissal of the instant case against him. The decretal portion of the Resolution reads: WHEREFORE, finding merit in the motion to dismiss filed by defendant Cesar C. Zalamea, We grant the same and hereby orders the instant case dismissed as against him. No costs. SO ORDERED. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration®* on November 28, 1995 which drew an Opposition® from defendant Zalamea. The Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the Court in a Resolution! dated February 14, 1996. As prayed for by defendant Garcia, a separate pre-trial and trial ensued as regards him.1° After the presentation of evidence by both plaintiff and defendant Garcia, the Court, in a Decision! dated August 15, 1995, dismissed the Complaint against defendant Garcia, the decretal portion of which reads: “WHEREFORE, for failure of the plaintiff to prove or sustain any of the causes of action in the Amended Complaint against defendant Exequiel Garcia, the case against him is hereby dismissed, as well as his Compulsory Counterclaim. No costs. SO ORDERED.” On September 20, 1995, plaintiff filed a Motion to Set Aside Decision and/or for New Trial.13 Defendant Garcia filed his Opposition’ thereto on September 29, 1995. On October 19, 1995, plaintiff filed its Reply!°> while defendant Garcia filed his Rejoinder to Reply!°° on October 27, 1995. In a Resolution!07 promulgated on October 30, 1995, the Court denied the alternative motions to set aside decision or for new trial. oe 98 Jd, Vol. 17, pp. 5077-5080 0 Id, pp. 5114-5116 10 [d, pp. 5120-5121 101 Id, Vol. 9, PP- 1 102 [d, Vol. 16, pp. 4806-4841 108 [d, pp. 4927-4928 101 [d, pp. 4938-4948 109 Id, Vol. 17, pp. 5048-5050 106 Id, Vol. 16, pp. 5019-5020 \\ 107 [d, pp. 5021-5028 Decision. Republic vs. Benedicto, Et Al. Civil Case No. 0034 Page 13 of 67 a Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which was docketed as G.R. No. 122953, for failure of the plaintiff to perfect its appeal within the reglementary period. On February 20, 1997, defendant Garcia filed a Motion for Execution! which was granted by the Court on August 26, 1997.10 ‘The factual and procedural antecedents as regards the remaining defendants are as follows: Plaintiff filed its Pre-Trial Brief!!° with respect to the remaining defendants!!! on March 11, 1999. Defendant Sison Defendant Sison filed his Pre-Trial Brief!!2 on July 5, 1999, Defendants Monzon, Nograles, Cheong and Olazo Defendants filed their Pre-Trial Brief!!? on January 5, 1999, On March 13, 1999, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss!1+ on the basis of a Memorandum dated February 10, 1988 of the PCGG to exclude defendants from the instant case. After several Motions for Extension filed by the plaintiff, the latter, in a Manifestation'!> dated May 25, 1999, alleged that defendant Monzon has entered into an Immunity Agreement with the Republic of the Philippines, through the PCGG, on May 14, 1992. The Immunity Agreement!'® is quoted hereunder: IMMUNITY AGREEMENT ‘This Agreement entered into this 14% day of May 1992 in Pasig, Metro Manila, by and Ee a 108 [d, Vol. 18, pp. 5588-5590 10 [d, Vol. 19, pp. 6289-6291 100 fd, Vol. 21, pp. 7188-7193 111 Ferdinand E. Marcos, Imelda R, Marcos, Africa, Vergara, Arambulo, Sison, Zalamea, Ferry, Tengco, Monzon, Olazo, Cheong, Nograles 2 Records, Vol. 21, pp. 7380-7386 13 Id, pp. 7188-7193 141d, pp. 7229-7233 Decision Republic vs. Benedicto, Et Al. Civil Case No. 0034 Page 14 of 67 x The REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, acting through and represented herein by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), with office address at 6t Floor, Philcomcen Bldg., Ortigas Ave., Pasig, Metro Manila, hereinafter referred to as the REPUBLIC; aera RAMON S, MONZON, of legal age, Filipino and a resident of No. 20 Kennedy St., North Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila hereinafter referred to as MONZON; witnesseth WHEREAS, MONZON is a respondent or defendant in OMB 091-1906 (Formerly PCGG 1.S. No. 89) and Civil Case No. 0034 now pending before the Ombudsman and Sandiganbayan, respectively, in connection with his alleged involvement and participation in the accumulation of ill-gotten wealth by Ferdinand E. Marcos and his immediate family in violation of Philippine laws, rules and regulations; WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of E.0. Nos. 1, 14 and 14-A, MONZON has agreed to fully cooperate in all investigations and prosecutions concerning the activities of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos and others in the accumulation of ill-gotten wealth, and to make disclosure statements pertinent thereto; WHEREAS, MONZON further agrees to surrender in favor of the REPUBLIC certain deposits with the Traders Royal Bank and all his shares in De Soleil Apparel; WHEREAS, in consideration of the foregoing commitments of MONZON, and relying on MONZON’s fair, truthful and complete disclosures as contained in Annexes “A”, “B’, “C” and “D” of this Agreement and which are made an integral part hereof, the REPUBLIC has agreed to grant MONZON immunity from civil and criminal prosecution NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. MONZON hereby represents that the disclosures contained in Annexes “A”, “B” and “C” and “D” hereof are fair, complete and truthful disclosures and representa oe Decision Republic vs. Benedicto, Et Al. Civil Case No. 0034 Page 15 of 67 x 2. MONZON further agrees to fully cooperate in any investigation presently being conducted or may be conducted by the REPUBLIC and to testify on matters within his competence in any case, civil or criminal, which the REPUBLIC has filed or may cause to be filed pursuant to E.O. 1 and 2; 3. MONZON, furthermore, waives, cedes, transfers and assigns in favor of the REPUBLIC any and all of his rights and interests in certain monies deposited with the TRADERS ROYAL BANK in the amount of P151,000,000.00 more or less, as described in Annex “C” hereof; In addition thereto, MONZON also cedes, transfers and assigns in favor of the REPUBLIC any and all of his rights and interests in DE SOLEIL APPAREL as described in Annex “D” hereof; 4. In consideration thereof, the REPUBLIC hereby grants MONZON absolute immunity from civil and criminal prosecutions for any and all acts covered by E.0. Nos. 1 and 2, 14, 14-a, and/or by reason or on account of the transactions, matters and things subject of his disclosures insofar as he is concerned, and releases and discharges MONZON from civil liability for all acts or omissions covered by said E.O. Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A; 5. Any sequestration and/or hold orders that may exist at the time of the signing of this Agreement are hereby dissolved and/or lifted insofar as MONZON’s interest is concerned; 6. The REPUBLIC also agrees to dismiss the pending cases against MONZON, i.e., Civil Case No. 0034, Republic vs, Roberto Benedicto, et al., and OMB 091-1906 (formerly I.S. No. 89), PCGG vs. Imee Marcos- Manotoc, at al.; 7. The immunity, release and discharge of liability have been granted by the REPUBLIC on the basis of and relying on MONZON’s representations and disclosures, and the delivery of the properties and titles thereto as herein provided. In the event that there be any material misrepresentation or concealment on the part of MONZON, this Agreement shall be deemed null and avoid (sic) and the immunity and other privileges therein conferred shall be deemed withdrawn. Decision Republic vs. Benedicto, Et Al. Civil Case No. 0034 Page 16 of 67 ae IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby affix their signatures on the date and place above written. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES RAMON Ss. MONZON BY: DAVID M. CASTRO Chairman Presidential Commission On Good Government In a Motion'!7 dated June 28, 1999, it was alleged that defendant Monzon has fully complied with all his undertakings under the above-quoted Immunity Agreement. Plaintiff filed its Opposition (Re: Motion dated June 28, 1999, of defendants Ramon Monzon, Cynthia Cheong, Maria Luisa Nograles and Generosa Olazo) on July 22, 1999.118 Defendants filed a Reply to Opposition on August 24, 1999 and a Manifestation!20 dated September 21, 2011. Ina Resolution’?! promulgated on September 9, 2013, the Court denied the Motion to Dismiss dated March 12, 1999 as well as the Motion dated June 28, 1999 ratiocinating that the mere execution of an immunity agreement is not a ground for dismissal of the instant suit, unless the plaintiff or both parties to the agreement jointly move for such dismissal. Defendants Monzon, Olazo, Cheong and Nograles filed a Request for Admission’ on April 6, 2015. Defendant Vergara On January 5, 1999, defendant moved for the suspension of the pre-trial proceedings against him until there is a final resolution of the dismissal of the case against defendant Africa considering that he is similarly situated with the pai 7 [d, Vol. 21, pp. 7388-7396 hs |d, pp. 7400-7402 u19 Id, pp. 7445-7448 20 [d, Vol. 30, pp. 14,228-14,294 wat fd, Vol. 31, pp. 14,639-14,648 322 [d, Vol. 32, pp. 15,128- f vid Vol. 21, pp. 7185-7187 ‘NK Decision Republic vs. Benedicto, Et Al Civil Case No. 0034 Page 17 of 67 Defendant Vergara filed his Pre-Trial Brief!?* on April 14, 1999. On December 28, 2003, defendant Vergara passed away.1?5 Defendant Imelda R. Marcos Defendant Imelda R. Marcos filed her Pre-Trial Brief!2° on September 6, 1999. Defendant Africa Defendant Africa passed away on December 20, 199512”. On February 23, 1996, the representatives of deceased Africa, namely: Victor Africa, Lourdes A. Africa, Nathalie A. Africa- Verceles, Jose Enrinque A. Africa, Paul Delfin A. Africa, filed a Motion to Dismiss or to Exclude from the Case.18 Plaintiff filed an Opposition! thereto on April 8, 1996. In a Resolution!30 promulgated on March 21, 1997, the Court granted the Motion filed by the representatives of the deceased Jose L. Africa and ordered the dismissal of the case insofar as it concerns the defendant, his representatives or heirs. Acting on the Motion for Reconsideration'! filed by the plaintiff as well as the Opposition”? filed by Victor Africa, et al. (representatives of the late Jose L, Africa), the Court resolved to grant the plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and set aside the Resolution dated March 21, 1997.13 After reconsideration, the Court resolved to drop Jose L. Africa, or his legal heirs in a Resolution!** promulgated on February 4, 2013. However, when assailed by the plaintiff, the Supreme Court resolved to reinstate Jose L. Africa and/or his legal heirs as defendants in the instant case.!%5 In compliance with the said Decision, the Court reinstated Jose L. Africa and/or Us Heirs of Jose L. Africa as defendants in the present ae 128 1d, pp. 7308-7309 15 [d, Vol. 27, pp. 12468-12471 281d, pp. 429 Id, pp. 5209-5212 tao 1d, Vol. 18, pp. 5682-5690 131d, pp. 5732-5736 122 [d, Vol. 19, pp. 5831-5834 139 1d, Vol. 21, pp. 7409-741 13# 1d, Vol. 31, pp. 14,510- 195 fd, Vol. 33, pp. 15,285-15,293, Republic of the Philippines, etc. vs. Legal Heirs of Jose L. Africa, G.R. No. 205722, August 19, 2015 135 Records, Vol. 34, p. 15,856 Decision Republic vs. Benedicto, Et Al. Civil Case No. 0034 Page 18 of 67 x On May 7, 2018, counsels for defendant Africa manifested that they are no longer presenting any further testimonial evidence for their client.'%” Victor Africa, pro se, as one of the substitute heirs of defendant Africa, submitted his Memorandum on August 29, 2018. Defendant Tengco Defendant Tengco, through counsel, manifested that he is no longer presenting any further testimonial evidence.!° On August 30, 2018, defendant Tengco filed his Memorandum dated August 28, 2018. Defendant Arambulo On March 31, 1993, defendant Arambulo filed a Motion [To Drop Defendant Rodolfo Arambulo] in view of his cooperation in the recovery of the California Overseas Bank.129 Plaintiff filed its Opposition! thereto on May 14, 1993 which drew a Reply'*! from defendant Arambulo. In a Resolution! promulgated on July 20, 1993, the Court resolved to deny defendant Rodolfo Arambulo’s Motion since his alleged participation in the establishment and formation of California Overseas Bank and his alleged connivance with the principal defendants in such undertaking are the main causes of action against him. Also, in view of the cession by defendants Benedicto, et al.!49 of their shares in Piedras Petroleum Co., Inc. pursuant to the approved Compromise Agreement, defendant Arambulo filed a Motion for Execution'* to direct the PCGG to release in his favor the dividends pertaining to his Piedras shares. Plaintiff filed an Opposition'* thereto dated April 11, 1996. In a Resolution!“ promulgated on July 11, 1997, the Court ordered the PCGG to release in favor of defendant Arambulo ae 187 Td, p. 15,995, 9 Td, 199 [d, Vol. 14, pp. 3551-3554 uo Id, p. 3637 11 Td, p. 3639-3640 12 1d, pp. 3691-3697 43 F, Benedicto, Mariano del Mundo, Salvador Tan and Pangilinan #4 Records, Vol. 17, pp. 5186-5191 185 Id, pp. 5216-5218 149 Jd, Vol. 19, pp. 5916-5938 \ Decision Republic vs. Benedicto, Et Al. Civil Case No. 0034 Page 19 of 67 x dividends corresponding to his Piedras shares and to cease from interfering with and/or obstructing the peaceful exercise of his rights of ownership over the Piedras shares, including the right to vote and to be voted for. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration"? on August 2, 1997 while Arambulo filed his Opposition'## on September 10, 1997. The Court denied plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration in a Resolution’? promulgated on February 3, 1998. The matter was settled with finality by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 133096 and and G.R. No. 140515, entitled “Republic vs. Sandiganbayan and Rodolfo 7, Arambulo”. Acting on the Manifestation’®°, Counter Manifestation!5!, Supplement!®2, Opposition’, Manifestation (In Lieu of Pre- ‘Trial Brief)'5* and Counter Manifestation'55, the Court issued a Resolution's* promulgated on February 11, 2000, the Court ordered the dropping of defendant Rodolfo Arambulo from this case. The Court ratiocinated that the approval of the Compromise Agreement, which settled the issue of the California Overseas Bank, effectively extinguished the liability of defendant Arambulo. The dispositive portion of the resolution reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, and in the interest of justice, the manifestation of defendant Arambulo is well-taken. Accordingly, he is hereby ordered dropped from this case. SO ORDERED. Plaintiff filed its Motion for Reconsideration’? on March 2, 2000 while Arambulo filed his Opposition!®* on April 29, 2000. However, a careful review of the records reveals that the Motion for Reconsideration and Opposition remain unacted upon by the Court. 147 Id, pp. 5981-5999 ‘Ig, Vol. 20, pp. 6,891-6,948 149 1d, pp. 6 150 Id, Vol. 21, fs 7088-7091 151 Jd, pp. 7143-7185 152 Id, pp. 7248-7258 58 Id, pp. 7299-7301 st Id, pp. 7348-7353 &ss |d, pp. 7378-7379 158 1d, Vol. 22, pp. 8089-8093 WW 157 Id, Vol. 23, pp. 8290-8299 58 Id, pp. 8536-8508 Decision Republic vs. Benedicto, Et Al. Civil Case No. 0034 Page 20 of 67 x Defendant Rodolfo Arambulo died on March 28, 2002159 and was substituted by his legal representative, Ronald L. Arambulo.!6° Defendant Cruz, Jr. In a Resolution!*! promulgated on September 6, 2013, the Court granted defendant Cruz’s motion to set separate pre-trial and trial. Thus, defendant Heirs of Roman C. Cruz, Jr. filed their Pre-Trial Briefi? on May 2, 2014. Plaintiff filed its Pre-Trial Brief® as against defendant Heirs of Roman C. Cruz, Jr. on May 30, 2014. On April 30, 2019, the PCGG and defendant Cruz jointly moved for the postponement of the pre-trial and manifested that there is already a draft compromise agreement submitted to the Commission En Banc of the PCGG for its consideration.'6* Quoted hereunder are the causes of action against the defendants as alleged in the Amended Complaint (Expanded Per Court-Approved Plaintiffs Manifestation Dated December 8, 1987): vi CAUSES OF ACTION 17. First Cause of Action: BREACH OF PUBLIC TRUST -- A public office is a public trust. By committing all the acts described above, Defendants repeatedly breached public trust and the law, making them jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff. The funds and other property acquired by Defendants following, or as a result of, their breach of public trust are deemed to have been acquired for the benefit of Plaintiff and are therefore, impressed with constructive trust in favor of Plaintiff and the Filipino people. Consequently, Defendants are solidarily liable to return or reconvey to Plaintiff all such funds and property thus impressed with constructive trust for the benefit of Plaintiff and the Filipino noe 189 Id, Vol. 25, pp. 9624-9627 160 Id, pp. 9705-9706 161 Id, Vol. 31, pp. 14629-14636 162 [d Vol, 32, pp. 14,877-14881 uaa Id, pp. 14,886-14,890 f Vol. 34, pp. 15979-15982 i Decision. Republic vs. Benedicto, Et Al. Civil Case No. 0034 Page 21 of 67 x 18. Second Cause of Action: ABUSE OF RIGHT AND POWER — (a) Defendants, in perpetrating the unlawful acts described above, committed abuse of right and power which caused untold misery, sufferings and damages to Plaintiff. Defendants violated, among others, Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines; (b) As a result of the foregoing acts, Defendants acquired title to and beneficial interests in funds and other property and concealed such title, funds and interests through the use of relatives, business associates, nominees, agents or dummies. Defendants are, therefore, jointly and severally, liable to Plaintiff to return and reconvey all such funds and other property unlawfully acquired, or alternatively, (sic) to pay Plaintiff, jointly and severally, by way of indemnity, the damage caused to Plaintiff equivalent to the amount of such funds and the value of other property not returned or restored to Plaintiff, plus interest thereon from the date of unlawful acquisition until full payment. 19. Third Cause of Action: - UNJUST ENRICHMENT - Defendants illegally accumulated funds and other property in violation of the laws of the Philippines and in breach of their official functions and fiduciary obligations. Defendants, therefore, have unjustly enriched themselves to the grave and irreparable damage and prejudice of Plaintiff. Defendants have an obligation at law, independently of breach of trust and abuse of right and power and, as an alternative, to jointly and severally return to Plaintiff such funds and other property with which Defendants, in gross evident bad faith, have unjustly enriched themselves or, in default thereof, restore to Plaintiff the amount of such funds and the value of the other property including those which may have been wasted, and/or lost, with interest thereon from the date of unlawful acquisition until full payment. 20, Fourth Cause of Action: -- ACCOUNTING - The Commission, acting pursuant to the provisions of applicable law, respectfully maintains that Defendants, acting singly or collectively, and/or in unlawful concert with one another, acquired funds, assets and property during the incumbency of Defendant public officers, manifestly out of proportion to their salaries, to their other lawful income and income from legitimately acquired property. Consequently, they are required to show to the satisfaction of this Honorable Court that they have lawfully acquired all such funds, assets and property which are in excess of their legal net income, and for this Honorable Court to decree that the Defendants are under obligation to account to oe \W Decision Republic vs. Benedicto, Et Al. Civil Case No. 0034 Page 22 of 67 x with respect to all legal or beneficial interests in funds, properties and assets of whatever kind and wherever located in excess of their lawful earnings. 21, Fifth Cause of Action: — LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES - (a) By reason of the unlawful acts (sic) have suffered actual damages in an amount representing the pecuniary loss sustained by the latter as a result of Defendants’ unlawful acts, the approximate value and interest on which, from the time of their wrongful acquisition, plus expenses which Plaintiff has been compelled to incur and shall continue to incur in its effort to recover Defendants’ ill-gotten wealth all over the world. Defendants are, therefore, jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff for actual damages and for expenses incurred in the recovery of Defendants’ ill-gotten wealth (b) As a result of Defendants’ unlawful, malicious, immoral and wanton acts described above, Plaintiff and the Filipino people had painfully endured and suffered for more than twenty long years, and still continue to endure and suffer anguish, fright, sleepless nights, serious anxiety, wounded feclings and moral shock, as well as besmirched reputation and social humiliation before the international community, for which Defendants are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff and the Filipino people for moral damages. (c) In addition, Plaintiff and the Filipino people are entitled to temperate damages for their sufferings which, by their very nature, are incapable of pecuniary estimation, but which this Honorable Corut may determine in the exercise of its sound discretion; (d) Defendants, by reason of the above described unlawful acts, have violate¢d (sic) and invaded the inalienable right of Plaintiff and the Filipino people to a fair and decent way of life befitting a Nation with rich natural and human resources. This basic and fundamental right of Plaintiff and the Filipino people should be recognized and vindicated by awarding nominal damages in an amount to be determined by the Honorable Court in the exercise of its sound discretion. (c) By way of example and correction for the public good and in order to ensure that Defendants’ unlawful, malicious, immoral and wanton acts are not repeated, said Defendants are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff for exemplary damages.1°° 165 Id, Vol. 3, pp. 168-173 Ww Decision Republic vs. Benedicto, Bt Al. Civil Case No. 0034 Page 23 of 67 ‘The pre-trial conference was terminated on September 6, 1999.16 The parties who have not presented their pre-trial briefs were considered to have waived their prerogative to participate in the pre-trial. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. In an Order dated July 30, 2018, the Court ruled that the right of Benedicto, Imelda Marcos, Sison, Gonzales, Ferry and Arambulo to present evidence are considered waived.1°7 PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE Lourdes Magno, Records Custodian of the PCGG, appeared before the Court pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum. She brought an original copy of the Compromise Agreement dated November 3, 1990 executed by and between Roberto S. Benedicto and the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the PCGG.'65 On March 22, 2004, Magno testified on cross-examination that she does not have in her possession the original copy of the Affidavit of Ramon Monzon because the same is also being used in other cases.!6? Pursuant to another subpoena duces tecum, Magno appeared again before the Court on January 17, 2007 and brought photocopies of the following documents: (1) Articles of Incorporation of California Overseas Bank dated July 29, 1974 and its By-Laws dated September 18, 1974; (2) Escrow Agreement between the California Overseas Bank and the group of Roberto Benedicto dated March 9, 1976; (8) Letter for approval to acquire control of the California Overseas Bank; and (4) Approval to acquire such control.17° Eduardo Esteva, Assistant Vice President of the Office of the Legal Counsel of the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), brought a certified copy of Resolution No, 2125 dated July 26, 1978. He admitted that he cannot testify as to the substance of the document considering that he had no hand ii 160 Id, Vol. 21, p. 7587 167 Id, Vol. 34, p. 14,040 168 TSN dated December 4, 2000, pp. 7-9 169 TSN dated March 22, 1004, pp. 6-7 | 70 TSN dated January 17, 2007, pp. 13-15 and pp. 24-25 Decision Republic vs. Benedicto, Et Al. Civil Case No. 0034 Page 24 of 67 os the preparation of the same.'7! However, he testified as to the authenticity of the board resolution including the certification of DBP’s Corporate Secretary and custodian of the document, Cecilia Dimaguiba, to whom the subpoena duces tecum was addressed.172 Maria Angelina Rana, Accounts Analyst of the Privatization Management Office (PMO), testified that she joined the PMO, formerly Asset Privatization Trust (APT), in 1996. As Accounts Analyst, her responsibilities include completion of statement of accounts, computation of amounts due as principal, accrued interest, and due balance after deducting payment.173 Pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum, she brought before the Court the Statement of Account of Aklan Bulk Carriers, Inc. as of December 31, 2002.17 According to her, by virtue of Proclamation No. 50 signed by then President Corazon Aquino, all the assets were transferred from the National Government to GFI75 and ultimately to APT.!7° She further testified that the unpaid balance of Aklan Bulk Carriers, Inc. as of December 31, 2003 is Php3,683,568,666.24.177 The loan was transferred to APT in 1986 and the original loan granted based on the Deed of Transfer was Php241,788,000.00.17° When asked by the court, Rana attested that the transfer price from GFI to APT was around Php241,000,000.00 and as of 2004, the same already amounted to Php3,000,000,000.00. She also testified that she was not yet with the APT at the time the loan was granted.!7° Nelia Hilvano Reyes, Special Investigator of the Legal Department of the PCGG, testified that pursuant to a Mission Order from former Commissioner Victoria Aveiia, she proceeded to the Malacafiang Presidential Library to perform the task assigned to her and that is to examine and photocopy possible documentary evidence relevant to the present case.!80 She was able to find a letter dated April 25, 1983 signed by Roberto meaner ae A ig 4 a BP I eae ih abs cn se se TA do. er st stg a ee abe se v0 1d pp. 20-21 sto TSN ated September 1, 2004, p. 7 i, Decision Republic vs. Benedicto, Et Al. Civil Case No. 0034 Page 25 of 67 x Benedicto addressed to Madame Imelda R. Marcos, Minister, Human Settlements, Malacafang, Manila.!8! On cross- examination, she admitted that she has not seen the signatory sign the particular document nor was she aware if Imelda R. Marcos has actually received it. She also admitted that she is not aware whether the contents of the document were true or not.182 Edwin Layosa Edrosa, Records Officer III of the Office of the Corporate Secretary of DBP, brought the following documents in compliance with the subpoena duces tecum dated December 8, 2004: (1) Letter of the Corporate Secretary, Lutgarda Peralta, addressed to Atty. Jaime Cabrera dated December 10, 2004; (2) Certified copies of DBP Board Resolution No. 2125, dated July 26, 1973; and (3) list of Governors of the DBP Board of Governors who participated in the deliberation thereof. 18? Documentary Evidence ‘The plaintiff filed its Formal Offer of Evidence!s* on August 3, 2014. In a Resolution’8> adopted on January 8, 2015, the Court resolved to admit the following pieces of documentary evidence subject to the appreciation by the Court of their intrinsic merit and probative value: Exhibit | Description Purpose A Resolution No./To prove that the) 2125 dated July| Development Bank of the 26, 1978 Philippines granted foreign guarantee loan to the companies of Roberto ed ninbuiceniah Benedicto kd mi filets) fl Minutes No. 31,/To prove that the July 26, 1978 Development Bank of the Philippines granted foreign guarantee loan to the! companies of Roberto Benedicto 1 Td, p. 8. 2 Td, pp. 10-11 38 TSN dated December 10, 2004, pp. 12-21 tot Records, Vol. 32, pp. 14,969 t0 15,059 p. 15,104 \ Decision Republic vs. Benedicto, Et Al Civil Case No. 0034 Page 26 of 67 x A-2 Minutes No. 31,|To prove that the July 26, 1978 Development Bank of the Philippines granted foreign guarantee loan to the companies of Roberto Benedicto A-3 |Minutes No. 31,/To prove that the July 26,1978 | Development Bank of the Philippines granted foreign guarantee loan to the companies of Roberto Benedicto A-4 |Minutes No. 31,/To prove that the July 26,1978 | Development Bank of the Philippines granted foreign guarantee loan to the companies of Roberto Benedicto A-5 | Signature/ typewritten name of Cecilia Dimagiba, DBP Corporate Secretary _ B |LetterofMa.Guia|To prove that defendant Ramos, Assistant | Jose Africa was Chairman Vice President of|of the Board of Traders Traders Royal | Royal Bank Bank, to Atty. Edgardo ik Kilayko we Cc Affidavit of|To prove that defendant Ramon Monzon|Ramon Monzon was a dated May 29, dummy of Imee Marcos in 1987 BBC, IBC and RPN broadcast corporations C-1 | Signature of|To prove authenticity of Ramon Monzon|Monzon’s signature on on Exh. C Exhibit

    You might also like