G.R. No.

212436 October 2, 2019

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by PCGG
vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN 2nd DIVISION
Facts of the Case:
The Republic, represented by PCGG (petitioner) filed a complaint against
Trader Royal Bank (respondent) for sum of money, reconveyance and enforcement
of foreign judgment relative to the recovery of ill-gotten wealth of former President
Marcos and his family and relatives. TRB however, refused payment allegedly
without just and valid cause after alleged banking instruments were turned over to
the petitioner. Bank of Commerce allegedly purchased TRB. Consequently, PCGG
amended its complaint to implead the Bank of Commerce as additional defendant.
In the course of the proceedings, the PCGG manifested that it will adopt as
evidence against the Bank of Commerce the testimonies of the witnesses that were
presented as evidence against TRB. Bank of Commerce also manifested the need to
conduct cross-examination on the said witnesses. However, PCGG said that the
witnesses were unavailable for cross-examination. Hearings were postponed several
times and cross-examinations did not push through due to the unavailability of the
witnesses as they can no longer be located. Consequently, Bank of Commerce
ordered that the testimonies of the witnesses be stricken out on the ground that it was
denied the opportunity to cross-examine.
Issue:
Whether the testimonies of the witnesses can be stricken out since the
respondents were not afforded for cross-examination.
Ruling:
SANDIGANBAYAN: It held that the Bank of Commerce was never afforded
the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The Sandiganbayan also held that
neither was the bank negligent nor that it incurred delay in conducting the cross-
examination.
SC: The court affirmed the decision of the Sandiganbayan. Section 6, Rule
132 of the Rules of Court reads:
Cross-examination; its purpose and extent. — Upon the termination of the
direct examination, the witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party as to
any matters stated in the direct examination, or connected therewith, with sufficient
fullness and freedom to test his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest
or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue.1
In the case at bar, identity of interests between TRB and the Bank of
Commerce, although alleged, has yet to be established and that the Bank of
Commerce is the successor-in-interest of TRB are mere conclusions of law or at best,
allegations which the PCGG bears the burden to prove by the required quantum of
evidence. Here, the Bank of Commerce expressly manifested its intention to subject
the witnesses to cross-examination and the repeated postponements of the trial
schedules were not due to its fault or negligence. Absence of opportunity to cross-
examine renders testimony incomplete and thus inadmissible for being incompetent.

1Rules of Civil Procedure - Rule 23 Section 3. Examination and cross-examination. - Examination and cross-examination of
deponents may proceed as permitted at the trial under Sections 3 to 18 of Rule 132.