Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82119:56167&catid=1573&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 20:57:08+00:00

Document:
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. LUZ REYES-BAKUNAWA, MANUEL BAKUNAWA, JR., MANUEL BAKUNAWA III, FERDINAND E. MARCOS AND IMELDA R. MARCOS, Respondents.
The Republic appeals the adverse decision rendered on April 10, 2002,2 and the resolution issued on November 8, 2007,3 whereby the Sandiganbayan respectively dismissed the complaint for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages filed against respondents in Civil Case No. 0023, and denied the Republic’s motion for reconsideration.
As the evidence stands, neither the presence of the link with the Marcoses, nor the irrefutability of the evidence against the Bakunawas for their misuse of that connection exists to justify the instant action by the PCGG.
In view of all the above, this Court is constrained to grant the Motion to Dismiss, as it hereby dismisses, the Complaint of the plaintiff for its failure to prove the essential allegations thereof.
The writs of sequestration issued and in force against the properties of the Bakunawas as enumerated in Annex A of the Complaint (page 24 and p. 34, Vol. I, Record) are lifted, set aside and declared of no further force and effect.
Many of the plaintiff’s allegations in its specific averments (Article V) in the complaint are alluded to in the evidence in a general fashion: engaging in cattle ranching and construction [para. 12 (a)], entering into public works contracts [para.12 (b)], acquisition of mangrove areas [para. 12 (c)]. Nothing exists in the record, however, with respect to undercapitalization of the corporation, non-compliance with bidding requirements, encroachment of ranches into forest zones, huge credit lines, unjustified claims of cost escalation adjustment, and importation of heavy equipment.
Properties have been shown in the name of the spouses Bakunawa or either of them; testimonies have been rendered about eviction, official documents presented with respect to public works contracts, and finally, a Statement of Assets and Liabilities for the year 1985. Indeed, to hear some of the witnesses, acts of oppression appear to have been committed if not by the wife then by the husband Manuel Bakunawa. There is no indication however, that the acts of oppression involved the improper use of influence on the part of the defendant Luz Bakunawa by reason of her having been employed in the office of the Social Secretary of Imelda Marcos when the latter was the First Lady.
An examination of the testimonial evidence for the Plaintiff, as summarized in the first part of this decision, shows its concentration in the alleged dispossession of some landowners of their occupied land in the province of Masbate by the defendants Bakunawa and the allegedly (sic) inaction by the Bureau of Forestry and the police agencies thereon. Thus, the almost uniform allegation of witnesses is that they were dispossessed of pasture lands which they believed they were entitled to possess. There were documents presented to prove that, indeed, the witnesses had claims to these pieces of property or had occupied them and had introduced improvements thereon.
The tenor of the testimony of the said witnesses is that while there was no force directly applied in the dispossession of their properties, their lands, however, were fenced in, and occupied by, other people, allegedly the Bakunawas and secured by armed and uniformed men.
There is likewise the contention of the plaintiff’s witnesses that they did not know who these men were, although it has been said that one or two of the men who helped in fencing off these properties were employees of the Bakunawas.
What is clear is that with the evidence thus far, the Bakunawas, or more specifically, Manuel Bakunawa, ignored the Bureau of Forestry summons, and caused the unceremonious exclusion of people who had apparently occupied rather large tracts of land under permits for the Bureau or those with pending applications.
There also seems to be evidence that defendant Luz Bakunawa did quite a bit of work in her capacity as a member of the staff of the Social Secretary of Imelda Marcos. While the influence of Luz Bakunawa may be assumed or conjectured, there has been no evidence which would categorically show that the position of defendant Luz Bakunawa in Malacañang “in concert with the spouses Marcos” or either of them was the explanation for the absence of the law enforcement officers or the inaction of the administrative officers of the government.
The influence may be assumed and in common parlance, it might be reasonably made. But to conclude that there was abuse of office by Luz Bakunawa or her utilization of the influence of her office or of the spouses Marcos cannot be assumed or stated in any certainty.
The Sandiganbayan ruled that in civil suits initiated by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) for the recovery of illegally acquired property pursuant to Republic Act No. 1379,18 the Republic must show not only that defendant was a subordinate of the Marcos spouses or of either of them, but also that the relationship was similar to that of an immediate member of the Marcos family or a dummy of the Marcoses.19 It concluded that no proof established the link between the alleged acts of the Bakunawas and those of the Marcoses, or even the proximity of Luz Bakunawa as a Marcos relative or Marcos dummy.
On November 8, 2007, the Sandiganbayan denied the Republic’s motion for reconsideration,21 reiterating its ruling that the Republic did not discharge its burden of proving the close links between the Bakunawas and the Marcoses, and of proving how the Bakunawas had abused said links, assuming that the links existed.
THE QUANTUM OF PROOF REQUIRED TO PROVE PETITIONER’S CASE AGAINST THE BAKUNAWAS IS MERE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE.
THE LINK BETWEEN AND/OR AMONG THE BAKUNAWAS AND THE MARCOSES WAS SATISFACTORILY ESTABLISHED BY PETITIONER.
In their comment,23 respondents mainly submit that the Republic failed to present a justiciable issue to warrant the reversal of the Sandiganbayan’s decision; and that the April 10, 2002 decision already become final and could no longer be reviewed and modified because of the belated filing of the petition for review.
The Bakunawas contend that the April 10, 2002 decision already became final because of the Republic’s failure to file the petition for review on time.
We cannot sustain the contention.
The Republic had until November 24, 2007 within which to file the petition for review. It filed a motion seeking an extension of 30 days of its period to file, or until December 24, 2007. Although it did not file the petition within the requested extension period, the Court directed it on June 30, 2008 to file the petition for review within 15 days from notice. Considering that it received the resolution of June 30, 2008 on August 11, 2008,25 its filing of the petition for review on August 26, 2008 was timely.
The Republic argues that the Sandiganbayan thereby erred in seemingly requiring a degree of proof greater than that required by Executive Order (E.O.) No. 14-A.27 This was also its submission in the motion for reconsideration vis-à-vis the decision of April 10, 2002.
Sec. 3. The civil suits to recover unlawfully acquired property under Republic Act No. 1379 or for restitution, reparation of damages, or indemnification for consequential and other damages or any other civil actions under the Civil Code or other existing laws filed with the Sandiganbayan against Ferdinand E. Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos, members of their immediate family, close relatives, subordinates, close and/or business associates, dummies, agents and nominees, may proceed independently of any criminal proceedings and may be proved by a preponderance of evidence.
Moreover, although the evidence of the plaintiff may be stronger than that of the defendant, there is no preponderance of evidence on the plaintiff’s side if its evidence alone is insufficient to establish its cause of action.32 Similarly, when only one side is able to present its evidence, and the other side demurs to the evidence, a preponderance of evidence can result only if the plaintiff’s evidence is sufficient to establish the cause of action. For this purpose, the sheer volume of the evidence presented by one party cannot tip the scales in its favor. Quality, not quantity, is the primordial consideration in evaluating evidence.
The decisive query is whether the Republic preponderantly showed that the Bakunawas had acquired ill-gotten wealth during Luz Bakunawa’s employment during the Marcos administration.
A brief review of the Philippine law and jurisprudence pertinent to ill-gotten wealth should furnish an illuminating backdrop for further discussion.
In the immediate aftermath of the peaceful 1986 EDSA Revolution, the administration of President Corazon C. Aquino saw to it, among others, that rules defining the authority of the government and its instrumentalities were promptly put in place. It is significant to point out, however, that the administration likewise defined the limitations of the authority.
The first official issuance of President Aquino, which was made on February 28, 1986, or just two days after the EDSA Revolution, was Executive Order (E.O.) No. 1, which created the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG). Ostensibly, E.O. No. 1 was the first issuance in light of the EDSA Revolution having come about mainly to address the pillage of the nation’s wealth by President Marcos, his family, and cronies.
x x x until it can be determined, through appropriate judicial proceedings, whether the property was in truth “ill-gotten,” i.e., acquired through or as a result of improper or illegal use of or the conversion of funds belonging to the Government or any of its branches, instrumentalities, enterprises, banks or financial institutions, or by taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence, resulting in unjust enrichment of the ostensible owner and grave damage and prejudice to the State. And this, too, is the sense in which the term is commonly understood in other jurisdictions.
Concerning respondents’ shares of stock here, there is no evidence presented by petitioner that they belong to the Government of the Philippines or any of its branches, instrumentalities, enterprises, banks or financial institutions. Nor is there evidence that respondents, taking undue advantage of their connections or relationship with former President Marcos or his family, relatives and close associates, were able to acquire those shares of stock.
x x x. We may also add that ‘ill-gotten wealth’, by its very nature, assumes a public character. Based on the aforementioned Executive Orders, ‘ill-gotten wealth’ refers to assets and properties purportedly acquired, directly or indirectly, by former President Marcos, his immediate family, relatives and close associates through or as a result of their improper or illegal use of government funds or properties; or their having taken undue advantage of their public office; or their use of powers, influence or relationships, “resulting in their unjust enrichment and causing grave damage and prejudice to the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.” Clearly, the assets and properties referred to supposedly originated from the government itself. To all intents and purposes, therefore, they belong to the people. As such, upon reconveyance they will be returned to the public treasury, subject only to the satisfaction of positive claims of certain persons as may be adjudged by competent courts. Another declared overriding consideration for the expeditious recovery of ill-gotten wealth is that it may be used for national economic recovery.
All these judicial pronouncements demand two concurring elements to be present before assets or properties were considered as ill-gotten wealth, namely: (a) they must have “originated from the government itself,” and (b) they must have been taken by former President Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, and close associates by illegal means.
But settling the sources and the kinds of assets and property covered by E.O. No. 1 and related issuances did not complete the definition of ill-gotten wealth. The further requirement was that the assets and property should have been amassed by former President Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, and close associates both here and abroad. In this regard, identifying former President Marcos, his immediate family, and relatives was not difficult, but identifying other persons who might be the close associates of former President Marcos presented an inherent difficulty, because it was not fair and just to include within the term close associates everyone who had had any association with President Marcos, his immediate family, and relatives.
Again, through several rulings, the Court became the arbiter to determine who were the close associates within the coverage of E.O. No. 1.
In Cruz, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, the Court declared that the petitioner was not a close associate as the term was used in E.O. No. 1 just because he had served as the President and General Manager of the GSIS during the Marcos administration.
Neither can there be any debate about the proposition that assuming the above described factual premises of the Executive Orders and Proclamation No. 3 to be true, to be demonstrable by competent evidence, the recovery from Marcos, his family and his minions of the assets and properties involved, is not only a right but a duty on the part of Government.
But however plain and valid that right and duty may be, still a balance must be sought with the equally compelling necessity that a proper respect be accorded and adequate protection assured, the fundamental rights of private property and free enterprise which are deemed pillars of a free society such as ours, and to which all members of that society may without exception lay claim.
x x x Democracy, as a way of life enshrined in the Constitution, embraces as its necessary components freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, and freedom in the pursuit of happiness. Along with these freedoms are included economic freedom and freedom of enterprise within reasonable bounds and under proper control. x x x Evincing much concern for the protection of property, the Constitution distinctly recognizes the preferred position which real estate has occupied in law for ages. Property is bound up with every aspect of social life in a democracy as democracy is conceived in the Constitution. The Constitution realizes the indispensable role which property, owned in reasonable quantities and used legitimately, plays in the stimulation to economic effort and the formation and growth of a solid social middle class that is said to be the bulwark of democracy and the backbone of every progressive and happy country.
Consequently, the factual premises of the Executive Orders cannot simply be assumed. They will have to be duly established by adequate proof in each case, in a proper judicial proceeding, so that the recovery of the ill-gotten wealth may be validly and properly adjudged and consummated; although there are some who maintain that the fact — that an immense fortune, and “vast resources of the government have been amassed by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, and close associates both here and abroad,” and they have resorted to all sorts of clever schemes and manipulations to disguise and hide their illicit acquisitions — is within the realm of judicial notice, being of so extensive notoriety as to dispense with proof thereof. Be this as it may, the requirement of evidentiary substantiation has been expressly acknowledged, and the procedure to be followed explicitly laid down, in Executive Order No. 14.
Accordingly, the Republic should furnish to the Sandiganbayan in proper judicial proceedings the competent evidence proving who were the close associates of President Marcos who had amassed assets and properties that would be rightly considered as ill-gotten wealth.
As can be gleaned from the foregoing pronouncement, evidentiary substantiation of the allegations of how the wealth was illegally acquired and by whom was necessary. For that purpose, the mere holding of a position in the Marcos administration did not necessarily make the holder a close associate within the context of E.O. No.1. According to Republic v. Migriño,35 the term subordinate as used in E.O. No. 136 and E.O. No. 237 referred to a person who enjoyed a close association with President Marcos and/or his wife similar to that of an immediate family member, relative, and close associate, or to that of a close relative, business associate, dummy, agent, or nominee. Indeed, a prima facie showing must be made to show that one unlawfully accumulated wealth by virtue of a close association or relation with President Marcos and/or his wife.38 It would not suffice, then, that one served during the administration of President Marcos as a government official or employee.
However, Luz Bakunawa maintains that she was not First Lady Marcos’ Social Secretary but a mere member of the staff of the Social Secretary; and that the assets of the Bakunawas were honestly earned and acquired well within the legitimate income of their businesses.
We hold that the Sandiganbayan correctly ruled that the evidence of the Republic was able to establish, at best, that Luz Bakunawa had been an employee in Malacañang Palace during the Marcos administration, and did not establish her having a close relationship with the Marcoses, or her having abused her position or employment in order to amass the assets subject of this case. Consequently, Luz Bakunawa could not be considered a close associate or subordinate of the Marcoses within the context of E.O. No. 1 and E.O. No. 2.
On another important aspect, the evidence of the Republic was likewise wanting. The Sandiganbayan enumerated in its decision five activities in which the Bakunawas had acquired their ill-gotten wealth, namely: (a) land-grabbing and cattle-ranching; (b) engaging in government construction projects; (c) operating fishponds; (d) obtaining credit lines from government financial institutions; and (e) importing heavy equipment.44 However, the decision dwelt only on land-grabbing and the construction projects for the reason that the Republic attempted to substantiate only those two activities. The Court is thus limited to the review of the findings on the two activities.
Anent land-grabbing, the records show that although the Bakunawas had ignored the summons from the Bureau of Forestry, and that the several persons occupying large tracts of land under permits from the Bureau of Forestry or under still-pending applications had been dispossessed thereof, the dispossessed persons whom the Republic presented as witnesses could not tell in court that the Bakunawas had employed the people who had fenced or occupied the lands in question. Such witnesses admitted that they did not put up much resistance against their forcible dispossession because of their belief that the Bakunawas had been very influential and had enjoyed very close ties with the Marcoses. However, they did not show that they had at the time any direct contact or communication with the Bakunawas, which could only mean that they only surmised and suspected the participation of the Bakunawas in their dispossession. As such, the Republic’s evidence in that regard could not be sufficient, for surmises and suspicions could not support any conclusion either that the Bakunawas had taken advantage of their close ties with the Marcoses in order to dispossess the affected witnesses, or that Luz Bakunawa had abused her influence arising from her close association with the Marcoses.
Concerning the negotiated construction contracts, the Republic posits that the contracts had been entered into when Luz Bakunawa was a member of the Presidential Staff during the Marcos administration, laying heavy emphasis on the notations and handwritten instructions by President Marcos found on the written communications from Manuel Bakunawa to then DPWH Secretary Baltazar Aquino.
Section 34. Offer of evidence. – The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified.
x x x a formal offer is necessary because judges are mandated to rest their findings of facts and their judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial. It has several functions: (1) to enable the trial judge to know the purpose or purposes for which the proponent is presenting the evidence; (2) to allow opposing parties to examine the evidence and object to its admissibility; and (3) to facilitate review by the appellate court, which will not be required to review documents not previously scrutinized by the trial court. x x x.
A document, or any article for that matter, is not evidence when it is simply marked for identification; it must be formally offered, and the opposing counsel given an opportunity to object to it or cross-examine the witness called upon to prove or identify it. A formal offer is necessary since judges are required to base their findings of fact and judgment only - and strictly - upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial. To allow a party to attach any document to his pleading and then expect the court to consider it as evidence may draw unwarranted consequences. The opposing party will be deprived of his chance to examine the document and object to its admissibility. The appellate court will have difficulty reviewing documents not previously scrutinized by the court below. The pertinent provisions of the Revised Rules of Court on the inclusion on appeal of documentary evidence or exhibits in the records cannot be stretched as to include such pleadings or documents not offered at the hearing of the case.
It is true that the recovery of ill-gotten wealth should be relentlessly pursued. But the pursuit should not be mindless as to be oppressive towards anyone. Due process requires that there be sufficient competent evidence of the asset being ill-gotten wealth, and of the person or persons charged with the illegal acquisition of ill-gotten wealth being a close associate or subordinate of the Marcoses who took advantage of such ties with the Marcoses to enrich themselves. In that effort, the Republic carries the heavy burden of proof, and must discharge such burden fully; otherwise, the effort would fail and fall.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition for review on certiorari for its lack of merit; and AFFIRM the decision rendered on April 10, 2002, without pronouncements on costs of suit.
Sereno, C.J., Abad,* Mendoza,** and Reyes, JJ., concur.
* Vice Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo De Castro, who took part in the Sandiganbayan, per the raffle of July 8, 2013.
** Vice Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., who is on leave, per Special Order No. 1502 dated August 8, 2013.
1Republic v. Sandiganbayan (First Division), G.R. No. 166859, G.R. No. 169203, and G.R. No. 180702, April 12, 2011, 648 SCRA 47, 132-133.
2Rollo, pp. 35-68; penned by Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena (deceased), with Associate Justice Catalino Castañeda, Jr. (retired) and Associate Justice Gregory Ong concurring.
3 Id. at 69-81; penned by Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta (later Presiding Justice, and presently a Member of the Court), with Justices Teresita J. Leonardo De Castro (later Presiding Justice, and presently a Member of the Court) and Associate Justice Efren N. Dela Cruz concurring.
7 Id. at 93- 95 (Annex A of the complaint enumerated respondents’ parcels of land, shares of stocks, bank accounts, receivables and other personal properties).
12 Records, Vol. VII, pp. 79-81.
18An Act Declaring Forfeiture In Favor Of The State Any Property Found To Have Been Unlawfully Acquired By Any Public Officer Or Employee And Providing For The Proceedings Therefor (June 18, 1955).
27 Amending Executive Order No. 14, August 18, 1986. Executive Order No. 14 is entitled Defining The Jurisdiction Over Cases Involving The Ill-Gotten Wealth Of Former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos, Members Of Their Immediate Family, Close Relatives, Subordinates, Close And/Or Business Associates, Dummies, Agents And Nominees.
29Encinas v. National Bookstore, Inc., G.R. No. 162704, November 19, 2004, 443 SCRA 293, 302.
30Soriquez v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 153526, October 25, 2005, 474 SCRA 222, 228, citing Gutib v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131209, August 13, 1999, 312 SCRA 365, 371.
31Rivera v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115625, January 23, 1998, 284 SCRA 673, 682.
32Sapu-an v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91869, October 19, 1992, 214 SCRA 701, 705-706.
33 Supra note 1, at 129-136.
34 (4) Prohibit former President Ferdinand Marcos and/or his wife, Imelda Romualdez Marcos, their close relatives, subordinates, business associates, dummies, agents, or nominees from transferring, conveying, encumbering, concealing or dissipating said assets or properties in the Philippines and abroad, pending the outcome of appropriate proceedings in the Philippines to determine whether any such assets or properties were acquired by them through or as a result of improper or illegal use of or the conversion of funds belonging to the Government of the Philippines or any of its branches, instrumentalities, enterprises, banks or financial institutions, or by taking undue advantage of their official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich themselves at the expense and to the grave damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.
35 G.R. No. 89483, August 30, 1990, 189 SCRA 289, 297-298.
37Regarding the Funds, Moneys, Assets, and Properties Illegally Acquired or Misappropriated by Former President Ferdinand Marcos, Mrs. Imelda Romualdez Marcos, their Close Relatives, Subordinates, Business Associates, Dummies, Agents, or Nominees (March 12, 1986).
43Municipality of Candijay, Bohol v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116702, December 28, 1995, 251 SCRA 530, 534.
51 G.R. No. 173090-91, September 7, 2011, 657 SCRA 86, 110-111, citing Heirs of Pedro Pasag v. Parocha, G.R. No. 155483, April 27, 2007, 522 SCRA 410, 416.
52 G.R. No. 107493, February 1, 1996, 253 SCRA 78, 82-83.
53 Section 4 of P.D. No. 1594 entitled Prescribing Policies, Guidelines, Rules And Regulations For Government Infrastructure Contracts (June 11, 1978).
54City of Quezon v. Lexber Incorporated, G.R. No. 141616, March 15, 2001, 354 SCRA 493.
55Royal Trust Construction v. COA, G .R. No. 84202, November 23, 1988 (Resolution of the Court en banc), per Eslao v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 89745 April 8, 1991, 195 SCRA 730, 738.
56Baylon v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 142738, December 14, 2001, 372 SCRA 437.
57National Center for Mental Health Management v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 114864, December 6, 1996, 265 SCRA 390.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.