Case Summary (G.R. No. 174673)
Key Individuals and Context
• Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG)
• Respondents: Spouses Fe Roa Gimenez and Ignacio B. Gimenez
• Lower Tribunal: Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division (Civil Case No. 0007)
• Subject Matter: Civil forfeiture under Republic Act No. 1379 to recover alleged “ill-gotten wealth” of respondents, accused as dummies or nominees of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda Marcos
• Decision on Review: January 11, 2016 (1987 Constitution governing due process and procedural rules)
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
• 1987 Philippine Constitution – Due process (Art. III, Secs. 1 & 14), equal protection, right to present evidence and confront evidence presented against a party
• Republic Act No. 1379 – Civil forfeiture proceedings against public officers who acquired property manifestly disproportionate to lawful income (preponderance of evidence standard)
• Rules of Court:
– Rule 132 (Formal offer of evidence; best evidence; public vs. private documents)
– Rule 128 (Admissibility of evidence)
– Rule 33 (Demurrer to evidence, judgment on merits)
– Rule 45 (Petition for Review on Certiorari from Sandiganbayan final orders)
Procedural Posture Before the Sandiganbayan
• PCGG filed complaint in 1987 seeking reconveyance, accounting, restitution, damages for alleged ill-gotten wealth of respondents
• Over 19 years, PCGG presented documentary evidence and five witnesses (including two PCGG officials) establishing bank accounts, property acquisitions, corporate interests and funds transfers
• On February 27, 2006, trial court closed petitioner’s evidence and ordered filing of written Formal Offer of Evidence within 30 days (extended twice, for a total of 75 days)
• Petitioner missed the May 13, 2006 deadline, prompting Sandiganbayan resolutions:
– May 25, 2006: deemed Formal Offer waived; directed reception of respondents’ evidence
– September 13, 2006: denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and to admit formal offer; granted respondents’ demurrer to evidence and dismissed the case
Sandiganbayan’s Grounds for Dismissal
• Procedural Default – Repeated extensions granted but PCGG failed to file written Formal Offer of Evidence; counsel attributed lapse to “pressing matters” and loss of track of time
• Failure to Prosecute – Unreasonable delay after 19 years; non-compliance with court orders warranted dismissal under Rule 17, Sec. 3
• Lack of Probative Value – Documentary exhibits were mostly certified true copies without presenting certifying persons;, thus deemed hearsay lacking weight
Supreme Court’s Scope of Review and Issues
• Proper Remedy – Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 appropriate for civil forfeiture (civil nature under RA 1379), raising questions of law from a final order of the Sandiganbayan
• Key Questions:
- Did the Sandiganbayan gravely abuse discretion in deeming the Formal Offer waived?
- Did it err in dismissing the case on demurrer to evidence without proper evaluation of all evidence?
- Was due process violated by strict enforcement of technical rules despite voluminous evidence?
Liberal Construction of Procedural Rules in Ill-Gotten Wealth Cases
• Procedural rules serve substantive justice; they are not ends in themselves (Rules 1 & 6, liberal construction clause)
• This Court’s policy encourages resolution on merits in PCGG cases, setting aside technicalities that delay recovery of unlawfully acquired assets
• Prior precedent (Tan v. Lim): relaxed formal–offer requirement when evidence was jointly offered in related actions; emphasized facilitating, not impeding, justice
Formal Offer of Evidence and Due Process
• Rule 132, Sec. 34: “The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered.” Failure to offer within reasonable time constitutes waiver
• Formal offer requirement protects due process by giving opposing party chance to review, object, or cross-examine
• Where substantial documentary evidence is gathered over decades in a forfeiture case, strict application of filing deadline unduly penalizes the government and the public interest
Documentary Evidence: Best Evidence Rule and Classification
• Rule 130, Secs. 3, 5–7: Best evidence rule applies when contents of document are in dispute; exceptions allow secondary evidence when originals are lost or public records; certified copies of public documents are admissible
• Rule 132, Secs. 19–30: Distinguishes public documents (official acts, notarized instruments, records required by law) from private documents; public documents self-authenticating, private ones require authentication or presenting original for content
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 174673)
Facts of the Case
- The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), acting for the Republic of the Philippines, filed a civil forfeiture Complaint for Reconveyance, Reversion, Accounting, Restitution and Damages against spouses Fe Roa Gimenez and Ignacio B. Gimenez in Sandiganbayan Civil Case No. 0007.
- The Republic alleged that the Gimenez Spouses acted as “dummies, agents, or nominees” of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda Marcos and acquired ill-gotten wealth grossly disproportionate to their lawful income.
- Documentary evidence included income tax returns, statements of assets and liabilities, bank account records, real-property titles, corporate articles of incorporation, and affidavits concerning the movement and disbursement of large sums abroad.
- PCGG witnesses Atty. Tereso Javier and Danilo R.V. Daniel testified on sequestered assets, bank accounts, corporate interests, and the investigation into the spouses’ alleged conduit roles.
Procedural Background
- After PCGG rested its case on February 27, 2006, Sandiganbayan gave the Republic 30 days (until March 29, 2006) to file a Formal Offer of Evidence. Two thirty-day extensions, and a further fifteen-day extension, were granted—totaling 75 days.
- No Formal Offer of Evidence was filed by the May 13, 2006 deadline. In a May 25, 2006 Resolution, the Sandiganbayan deemed the offer waived and directed the reception of defendants’ evidence.
- On May 30 and June 13, 2006, the Gimenez Spouses filed motions to dismiss—Ignacio on demurrer to evidence and Fe Roa for failure to prosecute and joining the demurrer.
- On June 15, 2006, the Republic moved for reconsideration and tendered its Formal Offer of Evidence, attaching detailed lists of documentary exhibits (A–ZZ series) covering tax documents, title deeds, bank advices, trust accounts, corporate records, affidavits, and memoranda.
First Assailed Resolution (May 25, 2006)
- The Sandiganbayan noted the Republic’s failure to file its Formal Offer of Evidence within the extended 75-day period.
- It declared the Formal Offer “deemed WAIVED,” and ordered that the defendants’ evidence proceed as scheduled on June 22–23, 2006.
Second Assailed Resolution (September 13, 2006)
- The Sandiganbayan denied the Republic’s Motion for Reconsideration and refused to admit the attached Formal Offer of Evidence.
- It granted the Gimenez Spouses’ Motion to Dismiss