Case Summary (G.R. No. 250565)
Petitioner and Respondents
Petitioner seeks civil forfeiture, accounting, restitution and damages for alleged illicit enrichment. Respondents include the Marcos heirs and various private individuals and entities purportedly acting as nominees, agents or beneficiaries of the Marcoses’ unlawful transfers.
Key Dates
Complaint filed: July 21, 1987
Sandiganbayan decision dismissing the case: September 25, 2019
Sandiganbayan denial of reconsideration: November 20, 2019
Supreme Court resolution: March 29, 2023
Applicable Law
- 1987 Philippine Constitution (case decided post-1990)
- Republic Act No. 1379 (Recovery of Illegally Acquired or Misappropriated Public Funds)
- Executive Order No. 14-A, Section 3 (preponderance standard in civil forfeiture)
- Rules of Court, Rule 45 (Review on Certiorari)
- 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (discovery rules in force during proceedings)
The Complaint
The Republic alleged that Ferdinand E. Marcos systematically withdrew public funds from the National Treasury, Central Bank and other financial institutions, transferring them into private hands. The Tantocos and Santiago purportedly served as dummies or nominees, procured franchises for duty-free shops, diverted tax benefits to private foundations (including those headed by Imelda Marcos), manipulated import privileges, and held real and personal assets for the Marcos family’s benefit. Relief sought included forfeiture of enumerated assets, a full accounting of wealth in excess of lawful earnings, and damages totaling ₱1.05 billion.
Proceedings before the Sandiganbayan
- After several substitutions for deceased parties, respondents filed discovery motions under Rules 24–29, prompting production of documents temporarily marked Exhibits A–LLL.
- Petitioner repeatedly represented it had no further documents, then presented additional exhibits (MMM–QQQ-5, RRR–YYY, MMMM–AAAAAAA-105) at pretrial and trial stages.
- Respondents moved to exclude undeclared documents; the Sandiganbayan initially denied but later, in a January 15, 2008 resolution, excluded most exhibits for violating the Best Evidence Rule and lacking authentication.
- On reconsideration, only Exhibits FF, GG, GG-1, HH, HH-1, XX, YY, ZZ, AAA, BBB and CCC were admitted. The Supreme Court in G.R. No. 188881 (final June 22, 2015) upheld exclusion of all other exhibits.
Sandiganbayan Ruling and Reconsideration
The Sandiganbayan characterized the proceeding as civil forfeiture requiring proof by a preponderance of evidence. With only 11 documentary exhibits and testimony from four witnesses admitted, it found the evidence insufficient to establish respondents acted as dummies, received undue benefits, or concealed illicit assets. It dismissed the Expanded Complaint on September 25, 2019 and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on November 20, 2019.
Petition for Review and Issue Framed
Petitioner invoked Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, arguing that the Sandiganbayan erred in excluding key evidence and that the remaining exhibits and testimonies sufficed to prove the allegations. The core issue: whether exclusion of exhibits and the finding of evidentiary insufficiency warranted dismissal.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Discovery and Sanctions
- Discovery under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is broad and mandatory; parties must disclose all relevant, non-privileged evidence in good faith.
- Failure to produce during discovery can lead to sanctions, including exclusion of documents.
- In Republic v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 90478), the Court emphasized parties’ duty to comply fully with discovery and warned that withheld evidence would be barred.
- In Republic v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 188881), the Court affirmed exclusion of all exhibits beyond LLL, labeling the petitioner’s conduct an intentional concealment.
Assessment of Admissible Evidence and Quantum of Proof
Civil forfeiture cases under EO 14-A, Section 3 require proof by a preponderance of evidence. The Supreme Court reviewed each admissible exhibit and witness testimony:
- Exhibits FF, GG, HH: administrative letters recommending audits or studies, not proof of wrongdoing.
- Exhibit XX: deed of assignment, showing only assignment, not illicit purpose.
- Exhibits YY, ZZ, AAA-CCC: promissory notes indicating indebtedness without linkage to alleged s
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 250565)
Nature of the Action
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
- Assails Sandiganbayan Decision (September 25, 2019) dismissing Expanded Complaint for Reconveyance, Reversion, Accounting, Restitution and Damages for insufficiency of evidence.
- Also challenges Sandiganbayan Resolution (November 20, 2019) denying reconsideration.
Parties and Substitutions
- Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG).
- Respondents: Bienvenido R. Tantoco, Jr.; Dominador R. Santiago; Ferdinand E. Marcos (substituted by heirs Imelda R. Marcos, Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr., Imee Marcos, Irene Marcos-Araneta); Imelda R. Marcos; Bienvenido R. Tantoco, Sr. (deceased, substituted by co-defendant Santiago as executor); Gliceria R. Tantoco (substituted by Santiago); Maria Lourdes Tantoco-Pineda.
Antecedent Facts and Allegations
- July 21, 1987: PCGG filed Expanded Complaint seeking forfeiture of alleged ill-gotten properties, restitution, damages (₱1.05 billion plus).
- Alleged scheme: Marcos unlawfully withdrew public funds and funneled them through nominees and dummies (Tantocos, Santiago) into real and personal properties, businesses (e.g., The Duty-Free Shops).
- Specific allegations:
• Respondents acted as dummies/nominees of Marcoses in acquiring art, jewelry, real estate, franchises.
• Diversion of franchise taxes (5% to private foundations headed by Imelda Marcos and Tantoco, Sr.).
• Unwarranted importation privileges and tax exemptions.
• Use of corporations (PEMI, RIMCO) as conduits of ill-gotten wealth.
Proceedings Below – Discovery and Pre-Trial
- Respondents filed interrogatories, request for production and inspection of documents; Sandiganbayan granted discovery—to prevent surprise and expedite trial.
- PCGG produced Exhibits “A”–“LLL” during discovery and repeatedly manifested no further documents.
- During pre-trial and trial, PCGG introduced additional exhibits (“MMM”–“AAAAAAA-105”) without prior disclosure.
- Respondents moved to sanction PCGG and ban undiscl