6. republic vs marcos-manotoc

8/9/2019 6. Republic vs Marcos-Manotoc

1/23

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Petitioner,

- versus

MA. IMELDA IMEE R. MARCOS-

MANOTOC, FERDINAND

BONBON R. MARCOS, !R.,

REORIO MA. ARANETA III, IRENE

R. MARCOS-ARANETA, "EUN CHUN

FAN, "EUN CHUN HO, "EUN CHUN

#AM, $%& PANTRANCO EMPLO"EES

ASSOCIATION 'PEA(-PT)O,

Respondents.

. R. No. *+*+*

Present:

BRION,J.,

Actin !hairperson,

"I##ARAMA, $R.,

P%R%&,

'%R%NO, and R%(%',JJ.

Pro)ulated:

*ebruar+ , /

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

D E C I S I O N

SERENO,J.:

Before this !ourt is a Petition for Revie0 filed b+ the Republic of the Philippines

assailin the Resolutions1/2issued b+ the 'andianba+an in connection 0ith an alleed portion of

the Marcoses3 supposed ill-otten 0ealth.

4his case involves P billion of the Marcoses3 alleed accu)ulated ill-otten 0ealth. It

also includes the alleed use of the )edia net0or5s IB!-/6, BB!- and RPN-7 for the Marcos

fa)il+3s personal benefit8 the alleed use of 9e 'oleil Apparel for dollar saltin8 and the alleed

illeal acuisition and operation of the bus co)pan+ Pantranco North %;press, Inc.


2/23

Te F$/t0

After the %9'A People Po0er Revolution in /7>, the first e;ecutive act of thenPresident !ora?on !. Auino 0as to create the Presidential !o))ission on @ood @overn)ent


3/23


4/23

4he alleations contained in the !o)plaint specific to herein respondents are the

follo0in:162

7. 9efendants I)elda


5/23


6/23


7/23

4hereafter, petitioner presented and for)all+ offered its evidence aainst herein

respondents. Eo0ever, the latter obected to the offer pri)aril+ on the round that the docu)ents

violated the best evidence rule of the Rules of !ourt, as these docu)ents 0ere unauthenticated8

)oreover, petitioner had not provided an+ reason for its failure to present the oriinals.

On // March , the 'andianba+an issued a Resolution 1>2ad)ittin the pieces of

evidence 0hile e;pressin so)e reservation, to 0it:

)HEREFORE, ta5in note of the obections of accused Marcoses and

the repl+ thereto b+ the plaintiff, all the docu)entar+ e;hibits for)all+ offered b+the prosecution are hereb+ ad)itted in evidence8 ho0ever, their evidentiar+ value

shall be left to the deter)ination of the !ourt.

SO ORDERED.

I)elda R. Marcos8 I)ee Marcos-Manotoc and Bonbon Marcos, $r.8 Irene Marcos-

Araneta and @reorio Ma. Araneta III8 (eun !hun Da), (eun !hun Eo and (eun !hun *an8

and the P%A-P4@KO subseuentl+ filed their respective 9e)urrers to %vidence.

On > 9ece)ber , the 'andianba+an issued the assailed Resolution,1C20hich ranted

all the 9e)urrers to %vidence e;cept the one filed b+ I)elda R. Marcos. 4he dispositive portion

reads:

)HEREFORE,pre)ises considered, the 9e)urrer to %vidence filed b+

defendant I)elda R. Marcos is hereb+ DENIED. 4he 9e)urrer to %vidence filedb+ defendants Maria I)elda Marcos Manotoc, *erdinand Marcos, $r., Irene

Marcos Araneta, @reorio Maria Araneta III, (eun !hun Da), (eun !hun *an,

(eun !hun Eo, and intervenor P%A-P4@KO, are hereb+ RANTED. 4heseuestration orders on the properties in the na)e of defendant @reorio Maria

Araneta III, are accordinl+ ordered lifted.

SO ORDERED.

4he 'andianba+an denied I)elda R. Marcos3 9e)urrer pri)aril+ because she had

cateoricall+ ad)itted that she and her husband o0ned properties enu)erated in the !o)plaint,

0hile statin that these properties had been la0full+ acuired. 4he court held that the evidence

presented b+ petitioner constituted aprima facie case aainst her, considerin that the value of
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/171701.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/171701.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/171701.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/171701.htm#_ftn9


8/23

the properties involved 0as rossl+ disproportionate to the Marcos spouses3 la0ful inco)e.

4hus, this ad)ission and the fact that I)elda R. Marcos 0as the co)pulsor+ heir and

ad)inistratri; of the Marcos estate 0ere the pri)ar+ reasons 0h+ the court held that she 0as

responsible for accountin for the funds and properties alleed to be ill-otten.

'econdl+, the court pointed out that Rolando @apud, 0hose deposition 0as ta5en in Eon

Don, referred to her as one directl+ involved in a)assin ill-otten 0ealth. 4he court also

considered the co)pro)ise aree)ent bet0een petitioner and Antonio O. *loirendo, 0ho

disclosed that he had perfor)ed several business transactions upon the instructions of the Marcos

spouses.

Kith reard to the siblins I)ee Marcos-Manotoc and Bonbon Marcos, $r., the courtnoted that their involve)ent in the alleed illeal activities 0as never established. In fact, the+

0ere never )entioned b+ an+ of the 0itnesses presented. Neither did the docu)entar+ evidence

pinpoint an+ specific involve)ent of the Marcos children.

Moreover, the court held that the evidence, in particular, e;hibits

FP,G12FL,G172FR,G1/2F',G1//2and F4,G1/20ere considered hearsa+, because their oriinals 0ere not

presented in court, nor 0ere the+ authenticated b+ the persons 0ho e;ecuted the). *urther)ore,

the court pointed out that petitioner failed to provide an+ valid reason 0h+ it did not present the

oriinals in court. 4hese e;hibits 0ere supposed to sho0 the interests of I)ee Marcos-Manoto5

in the )edia net0or5s IB!-/6, BB!- and RPN-7, all three of 0hich she had alleedl+ acuired

illeall+. 4hese e;hibits also souht to prove her alleed participation in dollar saltin throuh

9e 'oleil Apparel.

*inall+, the court held that the relationship of respondents to the Marcos spouses 0as not

enouh reason to hold the for)er liable.

In the )atter of the spouses Irene Marcos and @reorio Araneta III, the court si)ilarl+

held that there 0as no testi)onial or docu)entar+ evidence that supported petitioner3s

alleations aainst the couple. Aain, petitioner failed to present the oriinal docu)ents that

supposedl+ supported the alleations aainst the). Instead, it )erel+ presented photocopies of
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/171701.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/171701.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/171701.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/171701.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/171701.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/171701.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/171701.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/171701.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/171701.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/171701.htm#_ftn14


9/23

docu)ents that souht to prove ho0 the Marcoses used the Potencianos1/62as du))ies in

acuirin and operatin the bus co)pan+ Pantranco.

Mean0hile, as far as the (euns 0ere concerned, the court found the alleations aainst

the) baseless. Petitioner failed to de)onstrate ho0 their business, @lorious 'un *ashion

@ar)ents Manufacturin, !o. Phils.


10/23

inadvertence pro)pted I)ee Marcos-Manotoc and Bonbon Marcos, $r. to file their Motion for

%ntr+ of $ud)ent.

On March >, the court issued the second assailed Resolution, 1/H2den+in petitioner3s

Motion. 4he court pointed out its reservation in its Resolution dated / March , 0herein it

said that it 0ould still assess and 0eih the evidentiar+ value of the ad)itted evidence.

*urther)ore, it said that even if it included the testi)onies of petitioner3s 0itnesses, these 0ere

not substantial to hold respondents liable. 4hus, the court said:

)HEREFORE, there bein no sufficient reason to set aside the

resolution dated 9ece)ber >, , the plaintiff3sMotion for Partial

Reconsiderationis hereb+ DENIED. 4he plaintiff3sMotion and

Manifestation dated $anuar+ /, > is RANTEDin the interest of ustice.

4heMotion for Entry of Judgmentfiled b+ defendants I)ee Marcos andBonbon Marcos is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Eence, this Petition.

Petitioner raises the sa)e issues it raised in its Motion for Reconsideration filed before

the 'andianba+an, to 0it:1/2

I. 4E% 'AN9I@ANBA(AN %RR%9 IN @RAN4IN@ 4E%

9%MJRR%R 4O %"I9%N!% *I#%9 B( R%'PON9%N4' MA.

IM%#9A


11/23

III. R%'PON9%N4' IM%%, BON@BON@, AN9 IR%N% MAR!O' AR%

!OMPJ#'OR( E%IR' O* *ORM%R PR%'I9%N4 MAR!O' AN9

AR% %LJA##( OB#I@%9 4O R%N9%R AN A!!OJN4IN@ AN9R%4JRN 4E% A##%@%9 I##-@O44%N K%A#4E O* 4E%

MAR!O'%'.

I". 4E%R% %I'4' !ON!R%4% %"I9%N!% PRO"IN@ 4EA4

R%'PON9%N4' (%JN@ !EJN DAM, (%JN@ !EJN *AN, AN9

(%JN@ !EJN EO A!4%9 A' 9JMMI%' *OR 4E% MAR!O'%',AN9 J'%9 4E% !ORPORA4ION, @#ORIOJ' 'JN, A' A !ON9JI4

IN AMA''IN@ 4E% I##-@O44%N K%A#4E. A!!OR9IN@#(, 4E%

'AN9I@ANBA(AN %RR%9 IN @RAN4IN@ 4E%IR 9%MJRR%R 4O

%"I9%N!%.

". 4E% 9%MJRR%R 4O %"I9%N!% *I#%9 B( IN4%R"%NOR

P%A-P4@KO KI4E R%'P%!4 4O 4E% PAN4RAN!O A''%4'

'EOJ#9 NO4 EA"% B%%N @RAN4%9 'IN!% AMP#% %"I9%N!%PRO"%' 4EA4 4E% 'AI9 A''%4' IN9JBI4AB#( *ORM PAR4 O*

4E% MAR!O' I##-@O44%N K%A#4E, A' BJ44R%''%9 B( 4E%*A!4 4EA4 NO $J9I!IA# 9%4%RMINA4ION EA' B%%N MA9% A'

4O KEOM 4E%'% A''%4' RI@E4*J##( B%#ON@.

"I. 4E% 'AN9I@ANBA(AN3' RJ#IN@ KEI!E R%$%!4%9

P%I4I4ON%R3' 9O!JM%N4AR( %EIBI4' A##%@%9#( *OR

B%IN@ FINA9MI''IB#%G 9IR%!4#( !ON4RA9I!4' I4' %AR#I%R

RJ#IN@ A9MI44IN@ A## 'AI9 9O!JM%N4AR( %"I9%N!% AN9KA' R%N9%R%9 IN A MANN%R 4EA4 9%PRI"%9 P%4I4ION%R3'

RI@E4 4O 9J% PRO!%'' O* #AK.

4here is so)e )erit in petitioner3s contention.

The Marcos Siblings and

Gregorio Araneta III

!losel+ anal+?in petitioner3s !o)plaint and the present Petition for Revie0, it is clear

that the Marcos siblins are bein sued in t0o capacities: first, as co-conspirators in the alleedaccu)ulation of ill-otten 0ealth8 and second, as the co)pulsor+ heirs of their father, *erdinand

%. Marcos.1/>2

Kith reard to the first alleation, as contained in pararaph 7 of its 4hird A)ended

!o)plaint uoted above, petitioner accused the Marcos siblins of havin collaborated 0ith,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/171701.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/171701.htm#_ftn18


12/23

participated in, andor benefitted fro) their parents3 alleed accu)ulation of ill-otten 0ealth. In

particular, as far as I)ee Marcos-Manotoc 0as concerned, she 0as accused of dollar saltin b+

usin @lorious 'un to i)port deni) fabrics fro) one supplier at prices )uch hiher than those

paid b+ other users of si)ilar )aterials. It 0as also alleed that the Marcoses personall+benefitted fro) the seuestered )edia net0or5s IB!-/6, BB!-, and RPN-7, in 0hich I)ee

Marcos had a substantial interest.

Irene Marcos-Araneta, on the other hand, 0as accused of havin conspired 0ith her

husband, respondent @reorio Araneta III, in his bein President Marcos3 conduit to Pantranco,

thereb+ pavin the 0a+ for the President3s o0nership of the co)pan+ in violation of Article "II,

'ection H, pararaph of the /7C6 !onstitution.1/C2

4o prove the eneral alleations aainst the Marcos siblins, petitioner pri)aril+ relied

on the '0orn 'tate)ent1/2and the 9eposition1/72of one of the financial advisors of President

Marcos, Rolando !. @apud, ta5en in Eon Don on various dates.

Mean0hile, to prove the participation and interests of I)ee Marcos-Manotoc in 9e 'oleil

Apparel and the )edia net0or5s, petitioner relied on the Affidavits of Ra)on '. Mon?on,

12(eun D0o5 (in,1/2and Rodolfo ". Puno812and the transcript of stenoraphic notes


13/23

Petitioner contends that these docu)ents fall under the Rule3s third e;ception, that is,

these docu)ents are public records in the custod+ of a public officer or are recorded in a public

office. It is its theor+ that since these docu)ents 0ere collected b+ the P!@@, then, necessaril+,

the conditions for the e;ception to appl+ had been )et. Alternativel+, it asserts that theFdocu)ents 0ere offered to prove not onl+ the truth of the recitals of the docu)ents, but also of

other e;ternal or collateral facts.G1662

Te Court10 Ru23%4

Petitioner failed to observe the

best evidence rule.

It is petitioner3s burden to prove the alleations in its !o)plaint. *or relief to be ranted,

the operative act on ho0 and in 0hat )anner the Marcos siblins participated in andor

benefitted fro) the acts of the Marcos couple )ust be clearl+ sho0n throuh a preponderance of

evidence. 'hould petitioner fail to dischare this burden, the !ourt is constrained and is left 0ith

no choice but to uphold the 9e)urrer to %vidence filed b+ respondents.

*irst, petitioner does not den+ that 0hat should be proved are the contents of the

docu)ents the)selves. It is i)perative, therefore, to sub)it the oriinal docu)ents that couldprove petitioner3s alleations.

4hus, the photocopied docu)ents are in violation Rule /6, 'ec. 6 of the Rules of !ourt,

other0ise 5no0n as the best evidence rule, 0hich )andates that the evidence )ust be the

oriinal docu)ent itself. 4he oriin of the best evidence rule can be found and traced to as earl+

as the /thcentur+ inOmychund v. Barker,16H20herein the !ourt of !hancer+ said:

4he udes and saes of the la0 have laid it do0n that tere 30 5ut o%e

4e%er$2 ru2e o6 e73&e%/e, the best that the nature of the case will admit.

Te ru2e 30, t$t 36 te 8r3t3%40 $7e 0u50/r353%4 83t%e00e0 to tem,

te9 mu0t 5e pro7e& 59 to0e 83t%e00e0.

4he first round udes have one upon in departin fro) strict rules, isan absolute strict necessit+. Secondly, a presu)ed necessit+. In the case of

0ritins, subscribed b+ 0itnesses, if all are dead, the proof of one of their hands is


14/23

sufficient to establish the deed: 0here an oriinal is lost, a cop+ )a+ be ad)itted8

if no cop+, then a proof b+ 0itnesses 0ho have heard the deed, and +et it is a thin

the la0 abhors to ad)it the )e)or+ of )an for evidence.

Petitioner did not even atte)pt to provide a plausible reason 0h+ the oriinals 0ere not

presented, or an+ co)pellin round 0h+ the court should ad)it these docu)ents as secondar+

evidence absent the testi)on+ of the 0itnesses 0ho had e;ecuted the).

In particular, it )a+ not insist that the photocopies of the docu)ents fall under 'ec. C of

Rule /6, 0hich states:

Evidence admissible hen original document is a public record. !Khenthe oriinal of a docu)ent is in the custod+ of a public officer or is recorded in a

public office, its contents )a+ be proved be a certified cop+ issued b+ the public

officer in custod+ thereof.

'ecs. /7 and of Rule /6 provide:

'%!4ION /7. "lasses of documents.! *or the purpose of their presentation in

evidence, docu)ents are either public or private.

Public docu)ents are:


15/23

4he fact that these docu)ents 0ere collected b+ the P!@@ in the course of its

investiations does not )a5e the)per sepublic records referred to in the uoted rule.

Petitioner presented as 0itness its records officer, Maria #ourdes Mano, 0ho testifiedthat these public and private docu)ents had been athered b+ and ta5en into the custod+ of the

P!@@ in the course of the !o))ission3s investiation of the alleed ill-otten 0ealth of the

Marcoses. Eo0ever, iven the purposes for 0hich these docu)ents 0ere sub)itted, Mano 0as

not a credible 0itness 0ho could testif+ as to their contents. 4o reiterate, F1i2f the 0ritins have

subscribin 0itnesses to the), the+ )ust be proved b+ those 0itnesses.G Kitnesses can testif+

onl+ to those facts 0hich are of their personal 5no0lede8 that is, those derived fro) their o0n

perception.1624hus, Mano could onl+ testif+ as to ho0 she obtained custod+ of these

docu)ents, but not as to the contents of the docu)ents the)selves.

Neither did petitioner present as 0itnesses the affiants of these Affidavits or Me)oranda

sub)itted to the court. Basic is the rule that, 0hile affidavits )a+ be considered as public

docu)ents if the+ are ac5no0leded before a notar+ public, these Affidavits are still classified as

hearsa+ evidence. 4he reason for this rule is that the+ are not enerall+ prepared b+ the affiant,

but b+ another one 0ho uses his or her o0n lanuae in 0ritin the affiants state)ents, parts of

0hich )a+ thus be either o)itted or )isunderstood b+ the one 0ritin the). Moreover, the

adverse part+ is deprived of the opportunit+ to cross-e;a)ine the affiants. *or this reason,

affidavits are enerall+ reected for bein hearsa+, unless the affiants the)selves are placed on

the 0itness stand to testif+ thereon.16>2

As to the cop+ of the 4'N of the proceedins before the P!@@, 0hile it )a+ be

considered as a public docu)ent since it 0as ta5en in the course of the P!@@3s e;ercise of its

)andate, it 0as not attested to b+ the leal custodian to be a correct cop+ of the oriinal. 4his

o)ission falls short of the reuire)ent of Rule /6, 'ecs. H and of the Rules of !ourt. 16C2

In su))ar+, 0e adopt the rulin of the 'andianba+an, to 0it:

*urther, aain contrar+ to the theor+ of the plaintiff, the presentation of theoriinals of the aforesaid e;hibits is not validl+ e;cepted under Rule /6, 'ection

6


16/23

docu)ent is a public record in the custod+ of a public officer or is recorded in a

public office,3 presentation of the oriinal thereof is e;cepted. Eo0ever, as earlier

observed, all e;cept one of the e;hibits introduced b+ the plaintiff 0ere notnecessaril+ public docu)ents. 4he transcript of stenoraphic notes


17/23

beneficial interest therein8


18/23

Rule 6, 'ec. C of the Rules of !ourt defines indispensable parties as those parties-in-

interest 0ithout 0ho) there can be no final deter)ination of an action. 4he+ are those parties

0ho possess such an interest in the controvers+ that a final decree 0ould necessaril+ affect their

rihts, so that the courts cannot proceed 0ithout their presence. Parties are indispensable if theirinterest in the subect )atter of the suit and in the relief souht is ine;tricabl+ intert0ined 0ith

that of the other parties.1H2

In order to reach a final deter)ination of the )atters concernin the estate of *erdinand

%. Marcos that is, the accountin and the recover+ of ill-otten 0ealth the present case )ust

be )aintained aainst I)elda Marcos and herein respondent *erdinand FBonbonG R. Marcos,

$r., as e;ecutors of the Marcos estate pursuant to 'ec. / of Rule C of the Rules of !ourt.

Accordin to this provision, actions )a+ be co))enced to recover fro) the estate, real or

personal propert+, or an interest therein, or to enforce a lien thereon8 and actions to recover

da)aes for an inur+ to person or propert+, real or personal, )a+ be co))enced aainst the

e;ecutors.

Ke also hold that the action )ust li5e0ise be )aintained aainst I)ee Marcos-Manotoc

and Irene Marcos-Araneta on the basis of the non-e;haustive list attached as Anne; FAG to the

4hird A)ended !o)plaint, 0hich states that the listed properties therein 0ere o0ned b+

*erdinand and I)elda Marcos and their i))ediate fa)il+.1H62It is onl+ durin the trial of !ivil

!ase No. before the 'andianba+an that there could be a deter)ination of 0hether these

properties are indeed ill-otten or 0ere leiti)atel+ acuired b+ respondents and their

predecessors. 4hus, 0hile it 0as not proven that respondents conspired in accu)ulatin ill-otten

0ealth, the+ )a+ be in possession, o0nership or control of such ill-otten properties or the

proceeds thereof as heirs of the Marcos couple. 4hus, their lac5 of participation in an+ illeal act

does not re)ove the character of the propert+ as ill-otten and, therefore, as rihtfull+ beloninto the 'tate.

'econdl+, under the rules of succession, the heirs instantaneousl+ beca)e co-o0ners of

the Marcos properties upon the death of the President. 4he propert+ rihts and obliations to the

e;tent of the value of the inheritance of a person are trans)itted to another throuh the


19/23

decedent3s death.1HH2 In this concept, nothin prevents the heirs fro) e;ercisin their riht to

transfer or dispose of the properties that constitute their leiti)es, even absent their declaration

or absent the partition or the distribution of the estate. InJakosalem v. Rafols,1H20e said:

Article HH of the !ivil !ode provides that te po00e003o% o6 ere&3t$r9propert9 30 &eeme& to 5e tr$%0m3tte& to te e3r 83tout 3%terrupt3o% 6rom

te 3%0t$%t o6 te &e$t o6 te &e/e&e%t, 3% /$0e te 3%er3t$%/e 5e

$//epte&.And Manresa 0ith reason states that upo% te &e$t o6 $ per0o%,e$/ o6 30 e3r0 5e/ome0 te u%&373&e& o8%er o6 te 8o2e e0t$te 2e6t 83t

re0pe/t to te p$rt or port3o% 83/ m34t 5e $&:u&3/$te& to 3m, $

/ommu%3t9 o6 o8%er03p 5e3%4 tu0 6orme& $mo%4 te /oo8%er0 o6 te e0t$te

832e 3t rem$3%0 u%&373&e&.C7.=

And accordin to article 677 of the !ivil !ode, e7er9 p$rt o8%er m$9 $0034% or

mort4$4e 30 p$rt 3% te /ommo% propert9, and the effect of such assin)ent

or )ortae shall be li)ited to the portion 0hich )a+ be allotted hi) in the

partition upon the dissolution of the co))unit+. He%/e, 3% te /$0e o6!amire"vs. #autista, *; P32. , 8ere 0ome o6 te e3r0, 83tout te /o%/urre%/e o6

te oter0, 0o2& $ propert9 2e6t 59 te3r &e/e$0e& 6$ter, t30 Court, 0pe$?3%4

tru 3t0 te% C3e6 !u0t3/e C$9et$%o Are22$%o, 0$3& t$t te 0$2e 8$0 7$23&,

5ut t$t te e66e/t tereo6 8$0 23m3te& to te 0$re 83/ m$9 5e $22otte& to

te 7e%&or0 upo% te p$rt3t3o% o6 te e0t$te.


20/23

estate )ust be dul+ protected8


21/23

interest in the 9e 'oleil Apparel. 4he testi)on+ of Mr. Ra)on Mon?on durin the

hearin on $une , /7C before the Presidential !o))ission on @ood

@overn)ent as sho0n in the 4ranscript of 'tenoraphic Notes also affir)ed hisdeclarations in the Affidavit dated Ma+ 7, /7C. 4he 4ranscript of 'tenoraphic

Notes dated $une , /7C 0as presented as E353t . Moreover, the Affidavit

dated March /, /7> of (eun D0o5 (in 0hich 0as presented as E353tRdisclosed that I)ee Marcos-Manotoc is the o0ner of >CQ euit+ of 9e 'oleil

Apparel. 4he letter dated $ul+ /C, /7H sined b+ seven


22/23

0hile the O'@ is the principal leal defender of the overn)ent. 4he la0+ers of these

overn)ent aencies are e;pected to be the best in the leal profession.

Eo0ever, despite havin the e;pansive resources of overn)ent, the )e)bers of the

prosecution did not even bother to provide an+ reason 0hatsoever for their failure to present the

oriinal docu)ents or the 0itnesses to support the overn)ent3s clai)s. %ven 0orse 0as

presentin in evidence a photocop+ of the 4'N of the P!@@ proceedins instead of the oriinal,

or a certified true cop+ of the oriinal, 0hich the prosecutors the)selves should have had in their

custod+. 'uch )anner of leal practice deserves the reproof of this !ourt. Ke are constrained to

call attention to this apparentl+ serious failure to follo0 a )ost basic rule in la0, iven the

special circu)stances surroundin this case.

4he public prosecutors should e)plo+ and use all overn)ent resources and po0ers

efficientl+, effectivel+, honestl+ and econo)icall+, particularl+ to avoid 0astae of public funds

and revenues. 4he+ should perfor) and dischare their duties 0ith the hihest deree of

e;cellence, professionalis), intellience and s5ill.1H2

4he basic ideal of the leal profession is to render service and secure ustice for those

see5in its aid.1H72In order to do this, la0+ers are reuired to observe and adhere to the hihest

ethical and professional standards. 4he leal profession is so i)bued 0ith public interest that its

practitioners are accountable not onl+ to their clients, but to the public as 0ell.

4he public prosecutors, aside fro) bein representatives of the overn)ent and the state,

are, first and fore)ost, officers of the court. 4he+ too5 the oath to e;ert ever+ effort and to

consider it their dut+ to assist in the speed+ and efficient ad)inistration of ustice. 12 #a0+ers

o0e fidelit+ to the cause of the client and should be )indful of the trust and confidence reposed

in the).1/2Eence, should serve 0ith co)petence and dilience.12

Ke note that there are instances 0hen this !ourt )a+ overturn the dis)issal of the lo0er

courts in instances 0hen it is sho0n that the prosecution has deprived the parties their due

process of la0. InMerciales v. "ourt of $ppeals'/010e reversed the 9ecision of the R4! in

dis)issin the cri)inal case for rape 0ith ho)icide. In that case, it 0as ver+ apparent that the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/171701.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/171701.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/171701.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/171701.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/171701.htm#_ftn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/171701.htm#_ftn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/171701.htm#_ftn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/171701.htm#_ftn55http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/171701.htm#_ftn55http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/171701.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/171701.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/171701.htm#_ftn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/171701.htm#_ftn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/171701.htm#_ftn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/171701.htm#_ftn55


23/23

public prosecutor violated the due process rihts of the private co)plainant o0in to its blatant

disreard of procedural rules and the failure to present available crucial evidence, 0hich 0ould

tend to prove the uilt or innocence of the accused therein. Moreover, 0e li5e0ise found that the

trial court 0as ravel+ re)iss in its dut+ to ferret out the truth and, instead, ust Fpassivel+0atched as the public prosecutor bunled the case.G

Eo0ever, it )ust be e)phasi?ed thatMerciales 0as filed e;actl+ to deter)ine 0hether

the prosecution and the trial court ravel+ abused their discretion in the proceedins of the case,

thus resultin in the denial of the offended part+3s due process. Mean0hile, the present case

)erel+ allees that there 0as an error in the 'andianba+an3s consideration of the probative

value of evidence. Ke also note that inMerciales, both the prosecution and the trial court 0ere

found to be euall+ uilt+ of serious nonfeasance, 0hich pro)pted us to re)and the case to the

trial court for further proceedins and reception of evidence. Merciales is thus inapplicable to the

case at bar.

Nevertheless, iven the particular conte;t of this case, the failure of the prosecution to

adhere to so)ethin as basic as the best evidence rule raises serious doubts on the level and

ualit+ of effort iven to the overn)ent3s cause. 4hus, 0e hihl+ encourae the Office of the

President, the O'@, and the P!@@ to conduct the appropriate investiation and conseuent

action on this )atter.

)HEREFORE, in vie0 of the foreoin, the Petition is PARTIALL"RANTED. 4he

assailed 'andianba+an Resolution dated > 9ece)ber

is AFFIRMED0ith MODIFICATION.*or the reasons stated herein, respondents I)elda

Marcos-Manotoc, Irene Marcos-Araneta, and *erdinand R. Marcos, $r. shall be )aintained as

defendants in !ivil !ase No. pendin before the 'andianba+an.

#et a cop+ of this 9ecision be furnished to the Office of the President so that it )a+ loo5

into the circu)stances of this case and deter)ine the liabilit+, if an+, of the la0+ers of the Office

of the 'olicitor @eneral and the Presidential !o))ission on @ood @overn)ent in the )anner b+

0hich this case 0as handled in the 'andianba+an. SO ORDERED

6. republic vs marcos-manotoc

Documents