Republic v. Sandiganbayan

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 188881. April 21, 2014.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, BIENVENIDO R. TANTOCO, JR., DOMINADOR R. SANTIAGO, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, IMELDA MARCOS, BIENVENIDO R. TANTOCO, SR., GLICERIA R. TANTOCO, AND MARIA LOURDES TANTOCO-PINEDA, respondents.

DECISION

SERENO, C.J p:

This Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeks to nullify the Sandiganbayan Resolution dated 3 June 2009 in Civil Case No. 0008. 1 The Second Division of the graft court denied admission of Exhibits "MMM" to "AAAAAAA" in the Formal Offer of Evidence filed by petitioner Republic. 2 STDEcA

Twenty four years ago, the Republic, through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), commenced a complaint 3 for "reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages" against Bienvenido R. Tantoco, Jr. (Tantoco), Dominador R. Santiago (Santiago), Ferdinand E. Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos, Bienvenido R. Tantoco, Sr., Gliceria R. Tantoco, and Maria Lourdes Tantoco-Pineda. Instead of filing an Answer, respondents Tantoco and Santiago filed a "Motion to Strike Out Some Portions of the Complaint and for Bill of Particulars," which were both denied for lack of bases.

On 27 July 1989, Tantoco and Santiago filed with the Sandiganbayan a pleading denominated "Interrogatories to Plaintiff." A month later, they filed both an "Amended Interrogatories to Plaintiff" and a Motion for Production and Inspection of Documents. This time, the Sandiganbayan admitted the Amended Interrogatories and granted the Motion for Production and Inspection of Documents. When the PCGG elevated the issue to the Supreme Court, this Court, through then Justice Andres R. Narvasa, affirmed the Orders of the Sandiganbayan in this wise:

The Court finally finds that, contrary to the petitioner's theory, there is good cause for the production and inspection of the documents subject of the motion dated August 3, 1989. Some of the documents are, according to the verification of the amended complaint, the basis of several of the material allegations of said complaint. Others, admittedly, are to be used in evidence by the plaintiff. It is matters such as these into which inquiry is precisely allowed by the rules of discovery, to the end that the parties may adequately prepare for pre-trial and trial. . . . .

xxx xxx xxx

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, without pronouncement as to costs. The temporary restraining order issued on October 27, 1989 is hereby LIFTED AND SET ASIDE. SO ORDERED. 4

Pre-trial commenced, and from 3 January to 14 July 1993, the PCGG produced documents pre-marked as Exhibit "A" to "LLL" before Atty. Renato T. Bocar and respondents' counsel. 5 On 10 September 1996, the pre-trial was declared closed. 6 On 23 and 25 September 1996, the temporary markings of Exhibits "A" to "LLL," together with their sub-markings, were adopted. However, over the objections of respondents Tantoco and Santiago, the PCGG produced and caused the pre-marking of additional documents, Exhibits "MMM" to "AAAAAAA." 7

Tantoco and Santiago filed a "Motion under Rule 29 of the Rules of Court," claiming that the additional documents were never produced at the discovery proceedings and praying that petitioner be sanctioned for contempt. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion on 17 February 1997 (First Resolution). 8 Trial proceeded; however, new documents not shown at discovery were still being marked. Tantoco and Santiago again filed a "Motion to Ban Plaintiff from Offering Exhibits Not Earlier Marked During the Discovery Proceedings," which the graft court denied on 29 May 2002. 9

Petitioner filed its Formal Offer of Evidence on 16 March 2007. 10 On 15 January 2008, the Sandiganbayan ruled that with the exception of some documents, 11 "all Exhibits . . . are denied admission. The due execution and authenticity of these documents remain challenged since the prosecution failed to show otherwise." 12 On petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration, the Sandiganbayan partly relented and admitted Exhibits "MMM" to "AAAAAAA" (Second Resolution). 13 As certified to by the Chief Administrative Officer of the PCGG, 14 Exhibits "MMM" to "AAAAAAA" were turned over to its Legal Division and include the following: ESCacI

Exh. MMM	Memorandum for Hon. Teodoro Pena,	Xerox
	signed by Juan C. Tuvera
NNN	Undated handwritten letter purportedly written by Glecy	No remarks
	R. Tantoco	whether original
		or photocopy
OOO	Letter to Ferdinand E. Marcos from Bienvenido Tantoco	No remarks
	with handwritten marginal note dated 8 May 1982	whether original
		or photocopy
PPP	Undated letter to "Mam" from "Glecy"	Xerox
QQQ	(missing)	(missing)
RRR	Proclamation No. 50 dated Dec. 15, 1986, signed by	From APT
	Pres. Corazon Aquino
RRR	Complaint filed by RP thru Asset Privatization Trust	Xerox
	(APT) against Rustan Investment & Management
	Corporation
SSS	Administrative Order No. 14 dated Feb. 3, 1987 signed	From APT
	by Pres. Corazon Aquino
SSS	Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim filed by Rustan	Xerox
	Investment & Management Corporation
TTT	Contract dated Feb. 27, 1987 by and between RP and	No remarks
	DEBP	whether original
		or photocopy
TTT	Order – Civil Case No. 89-5268, RP v. Rustan Investment	From APT
UUU	Order – Civil Case No. 89-5268, RP v. Rustan Investment	From APT
VVV	(missing)	(missing)
WWW	Eastern Inspection Bureau for Phil. Eagle Mines, Inc.	From APT
	dated Oct. 18, 1989
XXX	Letter dated Dec. 20, 1990 for Asset Privatization Trust	Xerox
	from Dominador R. Santiago
YYY-YYY-	Articles of Incorporation of Rustan Investment	Xerox
22	& Management Corp. dated Feb. 21, 1966
YYY-23-	Certificate of Filing of Amended Articles of	Xerox
YYY-33	Incorporation dated Nov. 20, 1981
ZZZ	NBI Questioned Documents Report No. 729-1101	Original
	dated Jan. 21, 2002
AAAA-1	Undated, handwritten note signed by	Malacañang Lib
	Ferdinand Marcos
AAAA-2	Memo for the Pres. Dated 23 Jul 79	Malacañang Lib
	with handwritten markings
AAAA-3	Handwritten note Office of the President	Malacañang Lib
	stationery paper (undated)
AAAA-4	Handwritten note Office of the President	Malacañang Lib
	stationery paper (undated)
AAAA-5	Handwritten note Office of the President	Malacañang Lib
	stationery paper (undated)
AAAA-6	Handwritten note Office of the President	Malacañang Lib
	stationery paper (undated)
AAAA-7	Handwritten note Office of the President	Malacañang Lib
	stationery paper (undated)
AAAA-8-11	Handwritten note dated Dec. 28, 1978 Office of the	Malacañang Lib
	President stationery paper
AAAA-12-17	Handwritten note Office of the	Malacañang Lib
	President stationery paper
AAAA-18	Handwritten note dated Jan. 7, 1978 Office of the	Malacañang Lib
	President stationery paper
AAAA-19-25	Handwritten note Office of the President	Malacañang Lib
	stationery paper (undated)
Handwritten note Office of the President	Malacañang Lib
	stationery paper (undated)
Handwritten note Office of the President	Malacañang Lib
	stationery paper (undated)
Handwritten note Office of the President	Malacañang Lib
	stationery paper (undated)
BBBB-1a-1b	Microfilm of "Questioned" documents	No remarks
		whether original
		or photocopy
BBBB-2-7	Microfilm of "Questioned" documents	No remarks
		whether original
		or photocopy
BBBB-8-12	Microfilm of "Questioned" documents	No remarks
		whether original
		or photocopy
BBBB-13-20	Microfilm of "Questioned" documents	No remarks
		whether original
		or photocopy
BBBB-21-28	Microfilm of "Questioned" documents	No remarks
		whether original
		or photocopy
BBBB-29-33	Microfilm of "Questioned" documents	No remarks
		whether original
		or photocopy
CCCC-1-11	Executive Summary of Phil. Eagle Mines, Inc.	Xerox
DDDD-1-28	SEC Records of Phil. Eagle Mines, Inc.	Xerox
EEEE 1-13	TSN – Evelyn Singson	Xerox
FFFF-1-13	Affidavit of Evelyn R. Singson dated Aug. 18, 1986	Xerox
GGGG-1-6	SBTC (Security Bank and Trust Company) bank	PCGG Lib
	documents/credit ticket/certificate of
	deposit/telegraphic transfer/telex/money transfer
HHHH-1-9	SBTC debit tickets/transmittal documents/telexes	PCGG Lib
IIII-1-5	SBTC debit tickets/telexes/wire transfers	PCGG Lib
JJJJ-1-7	SBTC debit tickets/wire transfers/telexes/transmittal	PCGG Lib
	letters
KKKK-1-4	SBTC debit tickets/transmittal documents/Irving Trust	PCGG Lib
	documents
LLLL-1-4	SBTC debit tickets/transmittal documents/Irving Trust	PCGG Lib
	documents
MMMM-1-3	SBTC debit tickets/transmittal documents/Irving Trust	PCGG Lib
	documents
NNNN-1-3	SBTC debit tickets/transmittal documents/Irving Trust	PCGG Lib
	documents
OOOO-1-6	SBTC debit tickets/transmittal documents/Irving Trust	PCGG Lib
	documents
PPPP-1-2	SBTC money transfers/telex	PCGG Lib
QQQQ-1-2	SBTC money transfers/telex	PCGG Lib
RRRR-1-2	SBTC debit tickets/money transfers/telex	PCGG Lib
SSSS-SSSS-2	SBTC debit tickets/money transfer/Irving Trust	PCGG Lib
	documents
TTTT-1-4	SBTC debit tickets/money transfer/telex/Irving Trust	PCGG Lib
	documents
UUUU-1-4	SBTC debit tickets/money transfer/telex/Irving Trust	PCGG Lib
	documents
VVVV-1-5	SBTC debit tickets/money transfer/telegraphic transfer/	PCGG Lib
	Irving Trust documents
WWWW-1-3	SBTC debit tickets/telex/Irving Trust documents	PCGG Lib
XXXX-1-5	SBTC debit tickets/money transfer/telegraphic transfer/	PCGG Lib
	Irving Trust documents
YYYY-1-3	SBTC debit tickets/money transfer/Irving Trust	PCGG Lib
	documents
ZZZZ to	SBTC debit tickets/telegraphic transfer	PCGG Lib
ZZZZ-1
AAAAA-1-3	SBTC debit tickets/telex/telegraphic transfer	PCGG Lib
BBBBB-1-16	SBTC credit ticket/debit ticket/money transfer/	PCGG Lib
	telegraphic transfer, etc.
CCCCC-1-10	SBTC credit ticket/debit ticket/money transfer/	PCGG Lib
	telegraphic transfer, etc.
DDDDD-	SBTC debit tickets/telegraphic transfer	PCGG Lib
DDDDD-1
EEEEE-1-6	SBTC credit ticket/debit ticket/telex	PCGG Lib
FFFFF-1-5	SBTC document/credit ticket/debit ticket/telex	PCGG Lib
HHHHH-1-7	SBTC certificate of deposit/debit & credit ticket/money	PCGG Lib
	transfer/telex
IIIII-1-6	SBTC debit & credit tickets/money & wire transfers	PCGG Lib
JJJJJ-1-3	SBTC debit & credit tickets/telex	PCGG Lib
KKKKK-1-4	SBTC credit ticket/money transfer/telex	PCGG Lib
LLLLL-1-4	SBTC Certificate of Deposit/debit & credit tickets/telex	PCGG Lib
MMMMM-1-	SBTC debit & credit tickets/certificate of deposits/telex	PCGG Lib
11
NNNNN-1-5	SBTC debit & credit tickets/telex	PCGG Lib
OOOOO-1-6	SBTC Certificate of Deposit/debit & credit tickets/telex	PCGG Lib
PPPPP-1-2	SBTC credit ticket/debit advise/telegraphic transfer	PCGG Lib
QQQQQ-1-5	SBTC Certificate of Deposit/debit & credit tickets/telex	PCGG Lib
RRRRR-1-10	SBTC Certificate of Deposit/debit & credit tickets/telex	PCGG Lib
SSSSS-1-5	SBTC Certificate of Deposit/debit & credit tickets/	PCGG Lib
	telex/debit advise    ESAHca
TTTTT-1-28	Affidavit of Apolinario K. Medina dated July 23, 1987	Xerox
UUUUU-1-21	Affidavit of Dominador Pangilinan dated July 24, 1987	Xerox
VVVVV	Memo for Comm Ruben Carranza, Jr. from Dir. Danilo	Xerox
	R.V. Daniel dated June 6, 2003
WWWWW-1	Letter dated Dec. 8, 1982 to Gallery Bleue from Richard	Xerox
	Lynch (Hammer Galleries), unsigned
XXXXX to 1	Invoice dated Dec. 8, 1982 for Gallery Bleue total	Xerox
	$545,000.00
YYYYY-1-2	Invoice dated Dec. 8, 1982 for Gallery Bleue total	Xerox
	$545,000.00 signed by Mrs. Tantoco
ZZZZZ	Letter dated Dec. 8, 1982 to Gallery Bleue	Xerox
AAAAAA-1-3	Fe R. Gimenez – Bankers' Trust Check #485 dated Dec.	Xerox
	8, 1982 pay to Hammer Galleries
BBBBBB-1-2	Memo for Comm Ruben Carranza, Jr. from Dir. Danilo	Xerox
CCCCCC-1-2	Knoedler-Modarco S.A. – New York for Gallery Bleue	Xerox
	dated July 20, 1983
DDDDDD-1-5	Citibank, N.A. debit advice for $810,005.00	Xerox
EEEEEE-1-4	Citibank, N.A. cashier's check #38865 dated Nov. 22,	Xerox
	1983 for $810,000.00
FFFFFF-1-3	Letter dated Nov. 22, 1983 to Mrs. Tantoco from Peter	Xerox
	Sansone of Knoedler-Modarco
GGGGGG-1-	Declaration of Oscar M. Carino dated June 23, 1987	Original
26
HHHHHH-1-2	Agreement between Leslie R. Samuels and Gliceria R.	Xerox
	Tantoco
IIIIII to 1	Bankers' Trust Company Check #02002598 dated Sept.	Xerox
	3, 1981 for $1,000,000.00
JJJJJJ to 1	Letter dated Sept. 4, 1981 from Alan Forster of	Xerox
	Sotheby's
KKKKKK-1-3	Bankers' Trust Check #02002282 dated Sept. 18, 1981	Xerox
	for $4,950,000.00
LLLLLL-1-2	Hammer Galleries' Invoice dated Dec. 9, 1982 for	Xerox
	Gallery Bleue total $323,000.00
MMMMMM-	Bankers' Trust Check #200 for Hammer Galleries dated	Xerox
3-Jan	Dec. 20, 1982 for $323,000.00 issued by Fe Gimenez
NNNNNN-1-2	Hammer Galleries' Commercial Invoice dated Dec. 27,	Xerox
	1982 for Gallery Bleue
OOOOOO-1	Bankers Trust Statement of Account	Xerox
PPPPPP-1-4	Credit Suisse/Trinidad Foundation/Debit Advice/	Xerox
	$480,015.79
QQQQQQ-1-4	Credit Suisse/Palmy Foundation/Debit	Xerox
	Advice/$700,006
RRRRRR-1-3	Credit Suisse/Palmy Foundation/Debit	Xerox
	Advice/$2,000,005.62
SSSSSS	Certificate of the Swiss Authority executing request for	Xerox
	documents/Peter Cossandy
SSSSSS-1	Certificate of Authenticity of Business Records/Martin	Xerox
	Grossman
SSSSSS-2	List of documents numbered by the Examining	Xerox
	Magistrate/Peter Cossandy
TTTTTT-1-10	Letter dated Feb. 3, 1984 for Mrs. Gliceria Tantoco Re:	Xerox
	Glockhurst Corp.
UUUUUU-1	Debit Advice for Php3,241,393.00	Xerox
VVVVVV-1-3	Traders' Royal Bank Manager's Check #00671 dated	Xerox
	July 28, 1981 for Php3,241,393.00
WWWWWW-	Traders' Royal Bank Debit Advise for Php4,283,440.29	Xerox
1
XXXXXX-1-3	TRB Manager's Check #001282 for Php3,200,000.00	Xerox
YYYYYY-1-3	Letter from Rico Tantoco dated 5/6/82 to Fe	Xerox
ZZZZZZ-1-4	Status of Holdings in Phil. Eagle Mines, Inc. (PEMI)	Xerox
	grand total of Php2,640,351.90
AAAAAAA-	Affidavit of Rolando Gapud dated Aug. 1, 1987 with	PCGG Lib
1-105	annexes

Respondents, in turn, filed their Motion for Reconsideration, to which the graft court issued the assailed Resolution, stating: TaSEHD

After a thorough review of the circumstances, this Court is convinced that it is fair and just to grant defendants' Motion under Rule 29 of the Rules of Court filed on October 1, 1996 and to sanction the plaintiff for its deliberate refusal and failure to comply with the directive of this Court which was confirmed no less (sic) by the Supreme Court. The plaintiff must be prevented from offering in evidence all the documents that were not produced and exhibited at the time the plaintiff was under a directive to do so, i.e., Exhibits "MMM" to "AAAAAAA" . . . . In arriving at this conclusion, the Court is not unmindful of the fact that the exhibits involved have not passed the test of admissibility in any event. 15

Petitioner Republic now raises the sole issue of whether or not the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in excluding the documents due to petitioner's own failure to produce them at the pre-trial.

We deny the petition.

After a careful scrutiny of the records, We find that in excluding Exhibits "MMM" to "AAAAAAA," the Sandiganbayan properly exercised its discretion over evidence formally offered by the prosecution. Nothing therein shows that the court gravely exceeded its jurisdiction. For the reviewing court to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the lower court, the petitioner must show that the former's action was attended by grave abuse of discretion, defined as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, equivalent to lack of jurisdiction; or the exercise of power in an arbitrary manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility, so patent or so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty, to a virtual refusal to perform the mandated duty, or to act at all in contemplation of the law. 16

Petitioner would have us reverse the Sandiganbayan solely because the latter purportedly made contrary rulings in its earlier Resolutions. The Republic invokes the First Resolution, specifically the graft court's view that the exclusion of the Exhibits "would be too technical," since their non-production "could be attributed to inadvertence rather than willful disobedience." However, this First Resolution merely disposed of respondents' Motion to cite petitioner in contempt. It does not constitute an irrevocable stamp of admissibility.

Petitioner conveniently disregards the basic rule of evidence, namely, that the issue of the admissibility of documentary evidence arises only upon formal offer thereof. This is why objection to the documentary evidence must be made at the time it is formally offered, and not earlier. 17 Accordingly, the Court ruled in Interpacific Transit, Inc. v. Aviles as follows:

. . . . The identification of the document before it is marked as an exhibit does not constitute the formal offer of the document as evidence for the party presenting it. Objection to the identification and marking of the document is not equivalent to objection to the document when it is formally offered in evidence. What really matters is the objection to the document at the time it is formally offered as an exhibit.

xxx xxx xxx

It would have been so simple for the defense to reiterate its former objection, this time seasonably, when the formal offer of exhibits was made. It is curious that it did not, especially so since the objections to the formal offer of exhibits was made in writing. In fact, the defense filed no objection at all not only to the photocopies but to all the other exhibits of the prosecution. 18 (Emphases supplied)

Seasonable objection to the subject "Exhibits" can only be properly made upon formal offer. The Sandiganbayan acknowledged that Tantoco and Santiago had been consistent in reiterating their objections. The court even clarified in its First Resolution that their "Motion Filed Under Rule 29," was but in pursuance of their continuing objection to the marking of evidence not produced at discovery. Hence, nothing in the said Resolution can be read as a ruling on its admissibility. Its dispositive portion clearly states: "Under all these circumstances, there is no basis for the Court to declare plaintiff in contempt of court and it would be too much of a technicality to bar it from introducing the additional exhibits in evidence." 19

The Second Resolution, while issued after petitioner had submitted its Formal Offer of Evidence, noted that all the documents contained therein were photocopies. 20 It stated that a mere certification from the Clerk of Court that they "appear to be the original copy" would not suffice. The Sandiganbayan still admitted them as evidence, yet the only reason cited for doing so was liberality, viz.: "There is nothing in the rules which categorically prohibits the admission of additional documentary evidence when called for as a case progress [sic]. What is clear is that it is the Court's discretion to allow or disallow its reception." 21 Thus, the Sandiganbayan fittingly corrected itself when once and for all, it excluded the photocopies in its latest Resolution.

This Court discusses the contents and implications of the two earlier Resolutions, because petitioner simply has no other argument supporting its claim to reverse the Sandiganbayan. For those documents introduced in evidence as proof of their contents, the assailed Resolution stated that petitioner has not made any effort whatsoever to explain why it submitted mere photocopies. When the subject of inquiry is the content of a document, submission of a certified true copy is justified only in clearly delineated instances such as the following: STECDc

(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;

(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;

(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole; and

(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office. 22

Nothing on record shows, and petitioner itself makes no claim, that the Exhibits fall under any of the exceptions to the Best Evidence rule. Secondary evidence of the contents of writings is admitted on the theory that the original cannot be produced by the party who offers the evidence within a reasonable time by the exercise of reasonable diligence. Even then, the general rule is that secondary evidence is still not admissible until the non-production of the primary evidence has been sufficiently accounted for. 23

The Separate Opinion concurs in our dismissal of the petition for failure to show that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion. However, it disagrees with the latter's misapplication of the Best Evidence Rule. While the Sandiganbayan provided several reasons for its ultimate exclusion of the documents, it did not distinguish: 1) Which particular documents are to be excluded for violation of the Best Evidence Rule; and 2) Which of the remaining ones it has treated as private documents that lacked proper authentication. The detailed analysis of each piece of evidence vis-à-vis the purpose for which they were presented falls squarely under the purview and competence of the trial court. The Supreme Court cannot substitute its own conclusions for the factual determinations of the trial court. It is not the function of this Court to examine, review or evaluate the evidence. Absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion, as discussed above, this Court is then constrained to uphold the reasons forwarded by the Sandiganbayan.

The authority of the trial court to control its own discovery processes cannot be undermined. In this case, the Sandiganbayan's exercise of this power is neither whimsical nor oppressive. A writ of certiorari is available only to review final judgments or decrees, and will be refused where there has been no final judgment or order and the proceeding for which the writ is sought is still pending and undetermined in the lower tribunal. Pursuant to this rule, it has been held that certiorari will not lie to review or correct discovery orders made prior to trial. 24

As for the documentary evidence which are purportedly transmittal letters, petitioner remains unable to prove their due execution and authenticity. We subscribe to the view forwarded by the Sandiganbayan in its Second Resolution, which we quote below:

The fact that the documents were certified as true copies of the original by the PCGG does not enhance its admissibility. These documents have remained private even if it is in the custody of the PCGG. What became public are not the private documents (themselves) but the recording of it in the PCGG. For, "while public records kept in the Philippines, of private writings are also public documents . . . the public writing is not the writing itself but the public record thereof. Stated otherwise, if a private writing itself is inserted officially into a public record, its record, its recordation, or its incorporation into the public record becomes a public document, but that does not make the private writing itself a public document so as to make it admissible without authentication." 25 (Citation omitted, emphasis supplied.)

Aside from lack of authentication and failure to present the originals of these documents, what ultimately tipped the scales against petitioner in the view of the graft court was the former's lack of forthrightness in complying with the Supreme Court directive. The Sandiganbayan said: IAcDET

Thereafter, it did not take long in the process of the presentation of plaintiff's evidence before it became apparent that plaintiff's exhibits consist mostly of documents which have not been exhibited during the discovery proceedings despite the directive of this Court as confirmed by the Supreme Court. Plaintiff's failure to offer a plausible explanation for its concealment of the main bulk of its exhibits even when it was under a directive to produce them and even as the defendants were consistently objecting to the presentation of the concealed documents gives rise to a reasonable [inference] that the plaintiff, at the very outset, had no intention whatsoever of complying with the directive of this Court. 26

Petitioner failed to obey the mandate of G.R. No. 90478, which remains an important case on pre-trial and discovery measures to this day; the rationale of these rules, especially on the production of documents, must be constantly kept in mind by the bar:

The message is plain. It is the duty of each contending party to lay before the court the facts in issue-fully and fairly; i.e., to present to the court all the material and relevant facts known to him, suppressing or concealing nothing, nor preventing another party, by clever and adroit manipulation of the technical rules of pleading and evidence, from also presenting all the facts within his knowledge.

xxx xxx xxx

The truth is that "evidentiary matters" may be inquired into and learned by the parties before the trial. Indeed, it is the purpose and policy of the law that the parties — before the trial if not indeed even before the pre-trial — should discover or inform themselves of all the facts relevant to the action, not only those known to them individually, but also those known to adversaries; in other words, the desideratum is that civil trials should not be carried on in the dark; and the Rules of Court make this ideal possible through the deposition-discovery mechanism set forth in Rules 24 to 29. . . . .

xxx xxx xxx

. . . . (I)t is the precise purpose of discovery to ensure mutual knowledge of all the relevant facts on the part of all parties even before trial, this being deemed essential to proper litigation. This is why either party may compel the other to disgorge whatever facts he has in his possession; and the stage at which disclosure of evidence is made is advanced from the time of trial to the period preceding it. 27 (Emphasis supplied)

After failing to submit the documentary evidence during discovery, when it was clearly ordered by both the Sandiganbayan and the Supreme Court to do so, petitioner also repeatedly failed to prove the due execution and authenticity of the documents. Having failed in its belated attempts to assuage the Sandiganbayan through the submission of secondary evidence, petitioner may not use the present forum to gain relief under the guise of Rule 65.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, we deny the instant Petition for lack of merit. The Resolution of the Sandiganbayan in Civil Case No. 0008 (dated 3 June 2009) is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Leonardo-de Castro, Villarama, Jr. and Reyes, JJ., concur.

Bersamin, J., with concurring and dissenting opinion.

Separate Opinions

BERSAMIN, J., concurring and dissenting:

The Court hereby affirms the Sandiganbayan's assailed resolution denying admission to Exhibits "MMM" to "AAAAAAA" of petitioner Republic of the Philippines (Republic). There is no question that the Republic has not complied with the rules pertinent to the authentication of private documents as a condition for their admission as judicial evidence, and has not also satisfied the requirements for proving public documents.

I CONCUR.

However, I need to write this Opinion in order to clarify two points, namely: (1) the application of the Best Evidence Rule; and (2) the exclusion of evidence as a discovery sanction. To that extent, this Separate Opinion may differ from the ponencia.

A brief narration of the antecedents is necessary. AacDHE

The Republic, through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), brought against the respondents in the Sandiganbayan an action for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages. During the proceedings in the action, respondents Bienvenido R. Tantoco, Jr. and Dominador R. Santiago filed a Motion for Production and Inspection of Documents, praying that they be allowed to examine and copy the following documents during pre-trial, to wit:

1) The "official records and other evidence" on the basis of which the verification of the amended complaint asserted that its allegations were "true and correct;"

2) The documents listed in PCGG's Pre-Trial Brief as "intended to be presented and ** marked as exhibits for the plaintiff; and

3) "[T]he minutes of the meeting of the PCGG which chronicles the discussion (if any) and the decision (of the Chairman and members) to file the complaint [in this case]."

The Sandiganbayan granted the motion.

On November 21, 1991, this Court, in Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 1 affirmed the Sandiganbayan's grant of the motion. Accordingly, the PCGG produced during the pre-trial several documents that were marked as Exhibits "A" to "LLL." The pre-trial was terminated on September 10, 1996.

Thereafter, the PCGG produced and caused the pre-marking of additional documents denominated as Exhibits "MMM" to "QQQ." Tantoco and Santiago filed a Motion under Rule 29 of the Rules of Court, praying that the Republic be sanctioned for contempt of court for not producing said documents during the discovery proceedings. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion of Tantoco and Santiago on February 17, 1997.

Later on, the Republic again submitted and caused the marking of additional documents denominated as Exhibits "RRR" to "YYY" over the objection of Tantoco and Santiago who filed a Motion to Ban Plaintiff from Offering Exhibits Not Earlier Marked During the Discovery Proceedings. Yet again, the Sandiganbayan denied the motion on May 29, 2002.

On March 16, 2007, the Republic finally filed its Formal Offer of Evidence, under which Exhibits "MMM" to "AAAAAAA," the subjects of the petition herein, were described and offered in evidence as follows:

EXHIBIT NO.	DESCRIPTION	PURPOSE
MMM	Memorandum dated May 10, 1982	To show that the Tantocos
	for Hon. Teodoro Pena, Minister of	and/or their corporations
	Natural Resources issued by	were extended undue and
	Presidential Assistant, Juan C.	unwarranted influence,
	Tuvera, informing him that the	advantages and concessions
	President had approved the request	by Ferdinand and Imelda
	of Rustan Investment and	Marcos;
	Management Corp. for the
	extension of its shipment of 9,000	To show that the Tantocos
	cu.m logs until the loading is	were close associates of the
	completed	Marcoses
NNN	Undated handwritten letter of Glecy
	R. Tantoco to "FE" pertaining to
	the request as mentioned in Exhibit
	MMM
OOO	Letter dated April 29, 1982
	addressed to Pres. Ferdinand E.
	Marcos from Bienvenido R.
	Tantoco, Jr. as President of Rustan
	Investment & Management Corp.
	pertaining to the request for
	extension as stated in Exhibit
	MMM
PPP	Undated handwritten letter of Glecy
	R. Tantoco to "MAM"
RRR	Complaint in Civil Case No. 89-	To show that a complaint had
	5268 for Recovery of Deficiency	been filed by the government
	filed by the Government of the	against Rustan Investment
	Republic of the Philippines, thru its	and Management
	trustee, Asset Privatization Trust	Corporation, a Tantoco
	(APT) against Rustan Investment &	corporation, for the huge
	Management Corp., in relation to	loans obtained from the
	its joint and solidary obligation	DBP;
	with the Philippine Eagle Mines
	foreign currency loans obtained	To show that the Tantocos
	from DBP	and/or their corporation,
		because of their close
		association with Ferdinand
		and Imelda Marcos, were
		extended undue and
		unwarranted advantages and
		concessions, and obtained
		huge loans    IDETCA
SSS	Answer with Compulsory	To show that Rustan
(two documents	Counterclaim Civil Case No. 89-	Investment and Management
were marked as	5268 — RP thru Asset Privatization	Corporation filed an answer
Exhibit SSS)	Trust v. Rustan Investment &	to the complaint filed against
	Management Corp.	it for recovery of deficiency
		by reason of its joint and
		solidary obligation with
		Philippine Eagle Mines,
		another Tantoco-controlled
		corporation
	Administrative Order No. 14	To show that an
	approving the identification and	Administrative Order was
	transfer to the National Government	issued by President Aquino
	of certain assets and liabilities of	approving the identification
	DBP and PNB, promulgated by	and transfer of certain assets,
	Pres. Corazon C. Aquino on Feb. 3,	liabilities, deposits and
	1987	receivables to the National
		Government from DBP to
	(The Sandiganbayan took judicial	PNB
	notice of AO 14 during the
	September 11, 2001 hearing.)
SSS-1	List of Assets for Transfer from
	DBP and PNB as of June 30, 1986
SSS-2	Summary of Assets for transfer
	from PNB as of June 30, 1986
SSS-3	Schedule of Assets for transfer,
	deposits with and due from banks
	from PNB as of June 30, 1986
SSS-4	Schedule of Assets for transfer,
	bank premises, furniture and
	equipment from PNB as of June 30,
	1986
SSS-5 to 7	Schedule of Assets for transfer-
	loans and loan related accounts, as
	of June 30, 1986
SSS-8 to 10	DBP non-performing accounts for
	transfer as of June 30, 1986
TTT	Contract between the Government	To show that the DBP, by
	of the Republic of the Philippines	virtue and in consideration of
	and DBP regarding the transfer of	the National Government's
	the latter's assets and liabilities to	assumption of its certain
	the National Government, in	liabilities, transferred its
	accordance with Proclamation No.	assets, involving receivables
	50, December 8, 1986, as amended	to the government    SAHEIc
	(The Sandiganbayan took judicial
	notice of the Deed of Transfer
	during the September 11, 2001
	hearing.)
UUU	Order dated June 4, 1996 of the	To show that the Philippine
	RTC of Makati City, Branch 62, in	Eagle Mining Corporation
	Civil Case No. 89-5268, declaring	was declared in default for
	Philippine Eagle Mining	failure to file answer to the
	Corporation in default for failure to	complaint
	answer within 60 days from the last
	publication
WWW	Combined Credit and Property	To show that an inspection
	Checkings dated 18 October 1989	and investigation was
	conducted by Eastern Inspection	conducted against PEMI
	Bureau on Phil. Eagle Mines, Inc.	showing that the company
		was controlled by Tantocos
XXX	Letter of Dominado(r) R. Santiago	To show that Rustan
	to Asset Privatization Trust dated	Investment and Management
	20 Dec. 1990 offering to pay P5M	Corp. (RIMCO) offered P5M
	to APT in exchange for the	to APT in exchange for the
	dropping of the case against	dropping of the case against
	RIMCO	RIMCO
YYY to	Articles of Incorporation of	To show that RIMCO is a
YYY-22	RIMCO; Treasurer's Affidavit	corporation controlled by the
	signed by Gliceria Tantoco dated	Tantocos, known close
	30 June, 1965; By-Laws of RIMCO;	associates/dummies of
	Certificate of Filing of Certificate	President Marcos
	of Increase of Capital Stock by
	RIMCO
YYY 23 to	Amended Articles of Incorporation	To show that Bienvenido
YYY 33	of RIMCO;	Tantoco is a dummy of
		President Ferdinand Marcos;
ZZZ to ZZZ-1	Questioned Documents Report No.	To show that the marginal
	729-1101 by the National Bureau of	notes/signatures appearing in
	Investigation (NBI) as requested by	the subject documents were
	Hon. Manuel P. Paras, Legal	written/signed by Ferdinand
	Director of PCGG, the conclusion	Marcos
	of which states that the questioned
	signatures/handwritings on one
	hand and the standard sample
	signatures/handwritings of
	President Ferdinand E. Marcos on
	the other hand, were written by one
	and the same person (using Exhibits
	Q-1 and Q-2 and "S-1 to S-40" as
	bases)    TcIAHS
AAAA-1	Handwritten letter by President	To show that President
	Ferdinand E. Marcos (undated)	Marcos made notations and
	addressed to the Honorable Antonio	letters to his close associates
	Logarta thanking him for testifying
	in "Malundasan" cases which led to
	Pres. FM's acquittal
AAAA-2	Typewritten note to President FM
	with handwritten notes, dated 23
	Jul-79
AAAA-3 to	Handwritten notes on notepad with
AAA-41	letterhead of the Office of the
	President of the Philippines, Manila
BBBB to	Microfilm of "questioned	To show that the subject
BBBB-33	documents"	documents containing the
		handwritten notes of Pres.
		Marcos were microfilmed
CCCC to	Executive Summary on PEMI	To show that PEMI is a
CCCC-11		Tantoco-controlled
		corporation and had been
		granted tax-exemption by
		virtue of P.D. No. 463
DDDD-1 to	SEC Records of PEMI	To show that PEMI is a
DDDD-28		Tantoco-controlled
		corporation
EEEE to	TSN of the testimony of Evelyn	To show that Evelyn Singson
EEEE-15	Singson	testified with respect to the
		correct dollar and peso
		accounts of the Marcoses at
		the Security Bank and Trust
		Company
FFFF to	Affidavit dated 18 August 1986 of	To establish that the affiant
FFFF-13	Evelyn R. Singson directly linking	has personal knowledge or
	the First Family to Peso and	aware of the facts or
	Foreign Currency Savings and	conditions relative to the
	Trust Accounts managed and	allegations contained in her
	maintained by Rolando Gapud, then	affidavit
	President of Security Bank and
	Trust Company (SBTC)
GGGG to	Security Bank and Trust Company	To show the existence of
GGGG-6	(SBCTC) bank documents/credit	bank transactions involving
	ticket/certificate of	the SBTC secret bank
	deposit/telegraphic	account of the Marcoses with
	transfer/telex/money transfer	banks abroad
	involving $4,300,000.00 to
	Citibank N.A. 153 East Road 53rd
	St. New York to Account # 1086-
	9607 of Glockhurst Corp. N.V.    cDSaEH
HHHH to	Security Bank and Trust Company	To prove that there were
HHHH-9	(SBCTC) debit tickets/transmittal	regular bank transactions,
	documents/telex	withdrawals and debits with
		respect to the secret bank
		accounts of the Marcoses
IIII to IIII-5	SBTC debit tickets/telexes/wire	To prove that there were
	transfers	regular bank transactions,
		withdrawals and debits with
		respect to the secret bank
		accounts of the Marcoses
JJJJ to JJJJ-7	SBTC debit tickets/wire transfers	To prove that there were
	telexes/transmittal letters	regular bank transactions,
		withdrawals and debits with
		respect to the secret bank
		accounts of the Marcoses
KKKK to	SBTC debit tickets/transmittal	To show that there were bank
KKKK-4	documents/Irving Trust Documents	transactions involving the
		secret bank accounts of the
LLLL to	SBTC debit tickets/transmittal	Marcoses at SBTC with
LLLL-4	documents/Irving Trust Documents	banks abroad
MMMM to	SBTC debit tickets/transmittal	To show that there were
MMMM-3	documents/Irving Trust Documents	partial withdrawals, debits,
		and money transfer involving
		the secret bank accounts of
		the Marcoses at SBTC with
		banks abroad
NNNN to	SBTC debit and credit	To show that there were bank
SSSSS-5	tickets/certificate of	transactions involving the
	deposit/telex/wire, money, and	secret bank accounts of the
	telegraphic transfers/debit	Marcoses at SBTC with
	advise/Irving Trust Documents	banks abroad
TTTTT to	Affidavit of Apolinario K. Medina	To show that Apolinario K.
TTTTT-16	dated July 23, 1987, with annexes	Medina under oath freely and
		voluntarily made allegations
		in his Sworn Statement;
		To establish that the affiant
		has personal knowledge or
		aware of the facts or
		conditions stated in his
		affidavit.
TTTTT-17a	Withdrawal on July 28, 1981 by	To show that RIMCO, a
	Rustan Investment & Mgt. in the	Tantoco-controlled
	amount of P3,241,393.00	corporation, is a conduit of
		Ferdinand and Imelda
		Marcos in accumulating ill-
		gotten wealth
TTTTT-18 to	Withdrawal on September 4, 1981	To show that PEMI, a
TTTTT-18a	by Philippine Eagle amounting to	Tantoco-controlled
	P3,200,000.00	corporation, is a conduit of
		Ferdinand and Imelda
		Marcos in accumulating ill-
		gotten wealth
TTTTT-21 to	Credit and debit tickets of Traders	To show that there were
TTTTT-28	Royal Bank	money transfers, credits,
		debits involving Marcoses'
		secret account at traders
		Royal Bank with several
		banks abroad
UUUUU to	Affidavit of Dominador Pangilinan,	To show that Dominador
UUUUU-16	former Acting President and	Pangilinan under oath freely
	President of Traders Royal Bank	and voluntarily made
	dated July 24, 1987	allegations in his Sworn
		Statement;
		To establish that the affiant
		has personal knowledge or
		aware of the facts or
		conditions
UUUUU-17 to	Withdrawals of P3,241,393.00 by	To show that RIMCO, a
UUUUU-17a	Rustan Investment and	Tantoco-controlled
	Management Corporation	corporation, served as a
		conduit of Ferdinand and
		Imelda Marcos in
		accumulating ill-gotten
		wealth
UUUUU-18 to	Withdrawals of P3,200,000.00 by	To show that PEMI, a
UUUUU-18a	Philippine Eagle Mining	Tantoco-controlled
	Corporation	corporation, is a dummy of
		Ferdinand and Imelda
		Marcos
UUUUU-19 to	Part of Annexes of Affidavit of	To show that the affiant has
UUUUU-21	Dominador Pangilinan	personal knowledge or aware
		of facts or conditions stated
		in his affidavit    EScIAa
VVVVV to	Memorandum dated June 6, 2003 of	To show that as per
VVVVV-1	Director Danilo R.V. Daniel,	investigation of PCGG and
	PCGG Research and Development	interviews with the
	Department to PCGG	witnesses, the Tantocos and
	Commissioners Ruben Carranza, Jr.	Rustan Investment Corp.
	and Vyva M. Aguirre	were beneficiaries of ill-
		gotten funds From Marcos
		Trust Account No. 76-128 in
		Traders Royal Bank;
WWWWW to	Letter of Richard Lynch, Director	To show that the purchase of
WWWWW-1	of Hammer Galleries dated	valuable paintings by Imelda
	December 8, 1982 to Gallery Bleue,	Marcos was coursed through
	Rustan's Makati involving the	Gallery Bleue of Rustan's
	invoice for the purchase of 3	Makati;
	paintings by Imelda Marcos
		To show that the Tantocos
		and/or Rustan's are dummies
		of the Marcoses
XXXXX to	Invoice for paintings amounting to	To show that the purchase of
XXXXX-1	$545,000.00	valuable paintings by Imelda
		Marcos was coursed through
		Gallery Bleue of Rustan's
		Makati
YYYYY to	Acknowledgment by Mrs. Tantoco	To show that the Tantocos
YYYYY-2	of Invoice for painting "Hoosick	knowingly acted as
	Valley" amounting to $70,000.00	dummies, nominees and/or
		agents of Ferdinand and
ZZZZZ	Acknowledgment receipt for the	Imelda Marcos in acquiring
	delivery of "Hoosick Valley"	valuable paintings for the
	painting	Marcoses
AAAAAA to	Bankers Trust Company check	To show that payment of
AAAAAAA-2	dated Dec. 15, 1982 for $70,000.00	paintings from Hammer
	to Hammer Galleries by Fe	Galleries was through
	Gimenez under checking account	Bankers Trust Co. Check
	No. 001-34714415 for the Grandma	#485 amounting to
	Moses painting	$70,000.00 dated 12/15/82
		issued by Fe Gimenez,
		personal secretary of Imelda
		Marcos
BBBBBB to	Memorandum dated 23 April 2003	To show the manner by
BBBBBB-2	of Director Danilo R.V. Daniel,	which the purchase of
	PCGG Research and Development	valuable paintings by the
	Department to PCGG	Marcoses using ill-gotten
	Commissioners Ruben Carranza	funds was undertaken
	regarding paintings ordered from
	Hammer Galleries
CCCCCC to	Knoedler-Madarco S.A. — New	To show that valuable
CCCCCC-3	York's Advice/Invoice for Gallery	paintings sold to Gallery
	Bleue dated 20 July 1983 for the	Bleue in Rustan's Makati
	purchase of 5 paintings by	were for the benefit of
	President and Mrs. Marcos	Ferdinand and Imelda
	amounting to US$2,200,000.00	Marcos
DDDDDD to	Citibank, N.A. Debit advice for	To show that payment to
DDDDDD-3	$810,005.00	Knoedler-Madarco S.A. for
		valuable paintings were paid
		out of the funds of
		Glockhourst Corporation, an
		account of Gliceria Tantoco
		in Citibank N.A. New York
EEEEEE to	Citibank, N.A. Cashier's Check No.	To show that the Tantocos
EEEEEE-4	38865 for US$810,000.00 dated 22	knowingly acted as
	November 1983	dummies, nominees and/or
		agents of Ferdinand and
		Imelda Marcos in acquiring
		valuable paintings for the
		Marcoses
FFFFFF to	Letter dated 22 November 1983 to	To show that Gliceria
FFFFFF-3	Mrs. Tantoco from Peter Sansone	Tantoco is a close associate,
	of Knoedler-Modarco	dummy or agent of the
	acknowledging receipt of check	Marcoses
	payment of $810,000.00 for
	Madonna and Child and "City of
	Venice Adoring the Christ Child"
	paintings
GGGGGG to	Declaration of Oscar M. Carino	To show that the
GGGGGG-(1)2	dated 23 June 1987 who narrated	disbursements from the
	the disbursements of PNB-New	General Funds of PNB New
	York Branch of various amounts to	York were done under
	individuals and corporations, for	instructions from Mrs. Fe
	the purchase of building at 730	Gimenez, Imelda Marcos
	Fifth Avenue, New York and the	herself, Roberto Benedicto or
	purchase of the art collection of Mr.	his secretary Betty Rivera,
	Leslie Samuels amounting to	and Benjamin Romualdez
	US$4,950,000.00
		To show that Oscar M.
		Casino has personal
		knowledge or aware of the
		other facts or conditions
		stated in his declaration
GGGGGG-12a	Part of the declaration of Mr.	To show that the Tantocos
to GGGGGG-	Carino which mentioned the	knowingly acted as
12b	participation of Mrs. Gliceria	dummies, nominees and/or
	Tantoco during a meeting with Mr.	agents of Ferdinand and
	Leslie Samuels for the purchase of	Imelda Marcos in acquiring
	art works	valuable paintings for the
		Marcoses    HCITAS
HHHHHH to	Agreement between Leslie R.
HHHHHH-2a	Samuels and Gliceria Tantoco for
	the purchase of paintings and art
	works amounting to
	US$5,950,000.00
IIIIII to IIIIII-1	Banker's Trust Company check	To show that a check was
	dated September 3, 1981 for	issued in favour of Sotheby
	US$1,000,000.00 in favour of	ParkeBenet, Inc.
	Sotheby ParkeBenet, Inc.
		To show that the Tantocos
		knowingly acted as
		dummies, nominees and/or
		agents of Ferdinand and
		Imelda Marcos in acquiring
		valuable paintings for the
		Marcoses
JJJJJJ to JJJJJJ-1	Letter dated September 4, 1981	To show that the Tantocos
	from Alan Forster of Sotheby's	knowingly acted as
	acknowledging receipt from	dummies, nominees and/or
	Gliceria Tantoco, Banker's Trust	agents of Ferdinand and
	Company check dated September 3,	Imelda Marcos in acquiring
	1981 amounting to $1,000,000.00	valuable paintings for the
		Marcoses
KKKKKK to	Banker's Trust Check #02002282	To show that payment for the
KKKKKK-3	dated September 18, 1981 for	paintings ordered from Mr.
	$4,950,000.00	Samuels was paid out of
		funds from the bank account
		in Banker's Trust, New York
LLLLLL to	Hammer Galleries Invoice dated	To show that the Tantocos
LLLLLL-2	December 9, 1982 for Gallery	knowingly acted as
	Bleue of Rustan's amounting to	dummies, nominees and/or
	US$323,000.00	agents of Ferdinand and
		Imelda Marcos in acquiring
		valuable paintings for the
		Marcoses
MMMMMM to	Banker's Trust Check #0200 for	To show that payment for the
MMMMMM-3	Hammer Galleries dated December	paintings ordered from
	20, 1982 for $323,000.00 issued by	Hammer Galleries was paid
	Fe Gimenez	out of funds from the bank
		account in Banker's Trust,
		New York    cCHITA
NNNNNN to	Hammer Galleries Invoice dated	To show that the Tantocos
NNNNNN-3	December 27, 1982 for Gallery	knowingly acted as
	Bleue of Rustan's Makati	dummies, nominees and/or
		agents of Ferdinand and
		Imelda Marcos in acquiring
		valuable paintings for the
		Marcoses
OOOOOO to	Banker's Statement of Account	To show that some
OOOOOO-1		Philippine Banks where the
		Marcoses had accounts
		transacted with Banker's
		Trust Company
PPPPPP to	Credit Suisse/Palmy Foundation/	To show that the funds of
RRRRRR-3	Debit Advice for different amounts	foreign foundations were
		moved/diverted to accounts
		of known close
		associates/cronies of the
		Marcoses
SSSSSS to	Certificate of Authenticity of	To show that several foreign
SSSSSS-4	Business Records issued by Martin	foundations were set up
	Grossman	whose funds were later
		diverted to accounts of
		known close
		associates/cronies of the
		Marcoses
TTTTTT to	Letter dated February 3, 1984 for	To show that Gliceria
TTTTTT-10	Mrs. Gliceria Tantoco Re:	Tantoco acted as dummy and
	Glockhurst Corp., N.V. Current	agent of the Marcoses in the
	Account #10869607	management of account #
		10869607
UUUUUU to	Debit Advice for P3,241,393.00	To show that a Manager's
UUUUUU-1		check was issued by Traders
		Royal Bank from a secret
VVVVVV to	Traders Royal Bank Manager's	bank account of the
VVVVVV-3	Check #000671 dated July 28, 1981	Marcoses from said bank in
	for P3,214,393.00	favor of RIMCO
WWWWWW to	Traders Royal Bank Debit Advise	To show that the amount was
WWWWWW-1	for P4,283,440.29	debited from a secret bank
		account of the Marcoses
		from Traders Royal Bank in
		favor of RIMCO    ACTEHI
XXXXXX to	Trader's Royal Check #001282 for	To show that a check was
XXXXXX-3	P3,200,000	issued and debited to the
		Marcoses' known trust
		account with Traders
		Royal Bank
YYYYYY to	Letter from Rico Tantoco dated	To show that the Tantocos
YYYYYY-3	5/6/82 to Fe Gimenez re Philippine	are close associates,
	Eagle Mines	dummies, agents of the
		Marcoses
ZZZZZZ to	Status of Holdings in Philippine	To show that the Tantocos
ZZZZZZ-4	Eagle Mines, Inc. (PEMI) with	are close associates,
	grand total of P2,640,351.90	dummies, agents of the
		Marcoses
AAAAAAA to	Affidavit of Rolando Gapud dated	To prove that Rolando C.
AAAAAAA-105	August 1, 1987 with Annexes	Gapud is a crony, dummy,
		nominee, agent or trustee of
		the late Ferdinand Marcos
		and Imelda Marcos in several
		companies or entities;
		To prove that President
		Marcos and Imelda took
		advantage of their official
		position for personal gain or
		benefit to the prejudice and
		damage of the Filipino
		people. 2

The respondents objected to the admission of the Republic's exhibits principally because of the lack of proper authentication in accordance with Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.

On January 15, 2008, the Sandiganbayan denied admission to the Republic's exhibits. 3 The Sandiganbayan, noting that all the exhibits were merely certified true copies of documents, applied the Best Evidence Rule; and pointed out that the documents, most of which were private writings, had not been properly authenticated.

Acting on the Republic's motion for reconsideration, the Sandiganbayan, through its September 25, 2008 Resolution, modified its previous ruling by admitting Exhibits "FF", "GG" to "GG-1", "HH" to "HH-1," "XX," "YY," "AAA, "BBB," "CCC," and Exhibits "MMM" to "AAAAAA;" 4 held that the Republic substantially complied with the order to produce the requested documents; opined that the purpose for which discovery was sought was already satisfactorily complied with; and refused to exclude the Republic's exhibits solely on the ground that they had not been produced during the discovery proceedings. IDScTE

The respondents then sought reconsideration, and the Sandiganbayan partly granted their motion for reconsideration through its Resolution of June 3, 2009, thusly:

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, defendants' Motion for Reconsideration dated October 23, 2008 is partly granted thus: Exhibits "MMM" to "AAAAAAA" inclusive are hereby denied admission. Inferentially and as a corollary incident defendants' motion to prevent the plaintiff from introducing those documents in evidence is considered granted. However, Exhibits "FF," "GG", "GG-1", "HH", "XX", "YY", "ZZ", "AAA", "BBB" and "CCC" are admitted but subject to the qualifications hereinabove noted. Plaintiff's Motion to Present Original Documents dated October 20, 2008 is hereby noted.

So ordered.

Issue

Did the Sandiganbayan, in denying admission in evidence to Exhibits "MMM" to "AAAAAAA," commit grave abuse of discretion?

Submission

Although I CONCUR with the result reached by the ably-written ponencia of the Chief Justice, I have to point out that in dealing with offers of exhibits by the parties the trial courts must be ever aware of the specific purpose or purposes for which the exhibits are offered. I hold that such purpose or purposes determine the rules of admissibility that apply to the exhibits.

An exhibit that is offered may be a document, but its being a document does not necessarily mean that its admission must always rest on the rules on admissibility governing documentary evidence. The decisive factor is the purpose or purposes of the offer.

Let me clarify.

A.Rule does not apply

Under the Best Evidence Rule, the original document must be produced whenever its contents are the subject of inquiry. The rule is encapsulated in Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, as follows:

Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. — When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following cases:

(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;

(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;

(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole; and

(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office.

Why the Best Evidence Rule applies only when the terms of a writing are the subject of inquiry are suitably explained in Heirs of Margarita Prodon v. Heirs of Maximo S. Alvarez, 5 viz.:

The primary purpose of the Best Evidence Rule is to ensure that the exact contents of a writing are brought before the court, considering that (a) the precision in presenting to the court the exact words of the writing is of more than average importance, particularly as respects operative or dispositive instruments, such as deeds, wills and contracts, because a slight variation in words may mean a great difference in rights; (b) there is a substantial hazard of inaccuracy in the human process of making a copy by handwriting or typewriting; and (c) as respects oral testimony purporting to give from memory the terms of a writing, there is a special risk of error, greater than in the case of attempts at describing other situations generally. The rule further acts as an insurance against fraud. Verily, if a party is in the possession of the best evidence and withholds it, and seeks to substitute inferior evidence in its place, the presumption naturally arises that the better evidence is withheld for fraudulent purposes that its production would expose and default. Lastly, the rule protects against misleading inferences resulting from the intentional or unintentional introduction of selected portions of a larger set of writings. HcSCED

But the evils of mistransmission of critical facts, fraud, and misleading inferences arise only when the issue relates to the terms of the writing. Hence, the Best Evidence Rule applies only when the terms of a writing are in issue. When the evidence sought to be introduced concerns external facts, such as the existence, execution or delivery of the writing, without reference to its terms, the Best Evidence Rule cannot be invoked. In such a case, secondary evidence may be admitted even without accounting for the original.

Although the application of the Best Evidence Rule may be simple, determining whether the contents or terms of a writing are the subject of the inquiry, or whether a piece of evidence (other than the original document) intends to prove the contents of a writing, is more difficult than it seems. In Railroad Management Company LLC v. CFS Louisiana Midstream Co., 6 the US Court of Appeals (Fifth Circuit), which was faced with the complex task of determining whether to admit in evidence the affidavits of certain witnesses that had been submitted in evidence supposedly to prove the existence of an assignment agreement, acknowledged the difficulty in applying the Best Evidence Rule particularly because the party proffering the affidavits had contended that they were not intended to "prove the content" of the document (agreement), but only their "existence." It held that the affidavits were in fact submitted to prove the contents of the agreement, and observed as follows:

The purpose, flexibility, and fact-intensive nature of the application of the best evidence rule persuade us that the following factors are appropriately considered when distinguishing between whether it is the content of the document or merely its existence that a witness intends to testify concerning:

(a) the relative importance of content in the case, (b) the simplicity or complexity of content and consequent risk of error in admitting a testimonial account, (c) the strength of the proffered evidence and the presence or absence of bias or self-interest on the part of the witnesses, (d) the breadth of the margin for error within which mistake in a testimonial account would not undermine the point to be proved, (e) the presence or absence of the actual dispute as to content, (f) the ease or difficulty of producing the writing, and (g) the reasons why the proponent of other proof of its content does not have or offer the writing itself. 7

Indeed, when the terms or contents of a writing must be proved to make a case or put up a defense, the Best Evidence Rule is controlling. 8 But when the terms or contents are not in issue, and the matter to be proved exists independently of the writing and can be satisfactorily established by parol evidence (or other secondary evidence), the latter is equally primary. 9

Given the foregoing guidelines, the Best Evidence Rule is not controlling in the case before the Sandiganbayan. None of the issues presented there would be resolved only upon a consideration of the contents of any of the affected exhibits. Specifically, the exhibits (including the letters and memoranda) were presented to establish that either the Marcoses had extended undue and unwarranted influence, advantage and concessions to the respondents, or that the Marcoses had held a close relationship — financial or otherwise — with their alleged cronies. But considering that such facts were matters that could be competently inferred from the mere existence and execution of the documents themselves, the Republic did not need to present the documents to prove the particular transactions or incidents detailed in the documents. Hence, the production in court of the originals of the exhibits was neither crucial nor decisive.

When what is sought to be proved is an external or collateral matter, the original of the exhibit need not be produced in court in order to ensure its trustworthiness for purposes of the case. Such trustworthiness is already safeguarded by the rules on authentication and proof of documents embodied in Section 19 to Section 33 of Rule 132, Rules of Court. The court may safely rely on the documents thus authenticated and proved even without producing their originals, for it was not their terms or contents that were the subject of the inquiry.

B.Rule 29 of the Rules of Court,

I have to stress that the Republic's non-production of the documents during the discovery proceeding merited their exclusion as evidence. To me, their exclusion as evidence, a harsh sanction, should be applied only in extreme cases of discovery abuse. cDCHaS

The primary basis for sanctions to be prescribed on abuse of discovery or a refusal to comply with discovery proceedings is Rule 29 of the Rules of Court. With respect to the refusal to comply with an order to produce and allow the inspection of a document issued under Rule 27 of the Rules of Court, Section 3 of Rule 29 specifically provides as follows:

Section 3. Other consequences. — If any party or an officer or managing agent of a party refuses to obey an order made under section 1 of this Rule requiring him to answer designated questions, or an order under Rule 27 to produce any document or other thing for inspection, copying, or photographing or to permit it to be done, or to permit entry upon land or other property or an order made under Rule 28 requiring him to submit to a physical or mental examination, the court may make such orders in regard to the refusal as are just, and among others the following:

(a) An order that the matters regarding which the questions were asked, or the character or description of the thing or land, or the contents of the paper, or the physical or mental condition of the party, or any other designated facts shall be taken to be established for the purposes of the action in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order;

(b) An order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses or prohibiting him from introducing in evidence designated documents or things or items of testimony, or from introducing evidence of physical or mental condition;

(c) An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party; and

(d) In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, an order directing the arrest of any party or agent of a party for disobeying any of such orders except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination.

In other words, the sanctions may consist of: (a) regarding as established the contents of the document sought to be produced; (b) refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose claims or defenses; (c) prohibiting the disobedient party from introducing designated documents in evidence; (d) striking out pleadings or parts thereof; (e) staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed; (f) dismissing the action or any part thereof; (g) rendering judgment by default against the disobedient party; and (h) directing the arrest of the disobedient party.

It is important to note, however, that the sanctions under Section 3 are not exclusive. The courts retain the inherent power to impose sanctions for abuse of the judicial process, including abuse of discovery. 10 Section 5 (c) of Rule 135 of the Rules of Court particularly grants a court the power to "compel obedience to its judgments, orders and processes, and to the lawful orders of a judge out of court, in a case pending therein." A party who refuses to comply with the order to produce and allow the inspection of documents may then be held in indirect contempt under Section 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.

The general purpose of the sanctions is to render the discovery process effective. Sanctions serve an additional threefold purpose, namely: (1) to ensure that a party will not be able to profit from its own failure to comply with discovery; (2) to secure compliance with the particular order at hand; and (3) to act as a general deterrent in the case and in other litigations. 11 In Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, 12 the Court has observed that the choice of what sanction to impose upon the noncompliant party is within the court's sound discretion, and that such discretion should be exercised having always in mind the paramount and overriding interest of justice, "[f]or while the modes of discovery are intended to attain the resolution of litigations with great expediency, they are not contemplated, however, ultimately to be causes of injustice. It behooves trial courts to examine well the circumstances of each case and to make their considered determination thereafter." 13

In Solidbank Corporation v. Gateway Electronics Corporation, 14 the trial court penalized the respondent for not exerting diligent efforts to comply with its order to produce certain documents by considering as established the matters relating to the contents of the requested documents. The Court struck down the sanction primarily on the ground that the respondent's noncompliance with the court order had not been willful or made in bad faith, observing thusly:

We hold that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the aforesaid Order. It is not fair to penalize Gateway for not complying with the request of Solidbank for the production and inspection of documents, considering that the documents sought were not particularly described. Gateway and its officers can only be held liable for unjust refusal to comply with the modes of discovery if it is shown that the documents sought to be produced were specifically described, material to the action and in the possession, custody or control of Gateway. aSEHDA

Neither can it be said that Gateway did not exert effort in complying with the order for production and inspection of documents since it presented the invoices representing the billings sent by Gateway to Alliance in relation to the Back-end Services Agreement. Good faith effort to produce the required documents must be accorded to Gateway, absent a finding that it acted willfully, in bad faith or was at fault in failing to produce the documents sought to be produced. (Bold emphasis supplied)

The requirement of "willfulness" or "bad faith" as a condition for the imposition of discovery sanction is particularly crucial when the sanction to be imposed is harsh or prejudicial to the claim or defense of the disobedient party, like the dismissal of the case, or, as in this instance, the exclusion of evidence. Indeed, the exclusion of critical evidence has been denominated as an "extreme" sanction not normally to be imposed absent a showing of willful deception or flagrant disregard of a court order. 15

To conclude that the Republic lacked forthrightness in complying with the order for the production of documents from the fact that, as stated in the Sandiganbayan's Resolution of June 3, 2009, the Republic had "fail[ed] to offer a plausible explanation for its concealment of the main bulk of its exhibits even when it was under a directive to produce them . . . giv[ing] rise to a reasonable inference that the plaintiff, at the very outset, had no intention whatsoever of complying with the directive of the Court" 16 is unwarranted. Bad faith or willfulness should not be inferred from the mere failure of the Republic to render a plausible explanation. Good faith should be presumed in favor of the Republic. The respondents still carried the burden to show that the failure to produce the documents during the discovery proceeding had been in bad faith or willful. Absent such showing, the Republic should not be sanctioned with exclusion of its evidence.

I express my concurrence with the earlier Resolution of February 17, 1997, whereby the Sandiganbayan declared:

The . . . requirement of "willfulness" is imposed under Section 3(b), Rule 29 on Refusal to Make Discovery, Revised Rules of Court, which provides that the Court may prohibit a party for refusing to comply with a discovery order from introducing in evidence documents designated therein. Thus, it has been held that under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Court Procedure from which the above cited Section 3, Rule 29 was taken:

But such discretion [to make whatever disposition is just in the light of the facts of the particular case] must be exercised in a judicious manner, and relief under the rule is justified only in the exceptional case such as where the recalcitrant party has acted in willful disregard of, or with gross indifference to, an order of court requiring discovery or with such deliberate callousness or negligence as to occasion an inability to comply with the court's order. (Wembley, Inc. vs. Diplomat Tie Co. (DC Md) 216 F Supp. 565)

Absent proof of plaintiff's willful failure to comply with discovery order, order precluding him from offering proof tending to contradict certain defense would not be granted (Campbell vs. Johnson (DC NY) 101 F. Supp. 705)

In this case, there is no evidence that the plaintiff willfully disobeyed or disregarded the Resolution issued on August 25, 1989. Absent such proof and consistently with good faith which is presumed, the non-production or non-marking of the additional exhibits at the discovery proceedings could be attributed to inadvertence rather than willful disobedience, considering that the record from which Exhibits A to LLL and submarkings were collated was voluminous or that the relevance and importance of Exhibits MMM to QQQ and submarkings were overlooked at that time and consequently omitted from being produced or marked as evidence.

This observation gains greater cogency from the indisputed fact that there was substantial compliance with the Resolution — 152 documents were produced as against 10 which were not made available or temporarily marked. And the first four of the 10 were relatively unimportant for being mere covering transmittal letter which Mr. Tantoco and Atty. Santiago themselves branded as immaterial and impertinent.

Anent the deposition (Exhibit QQQ), it could not have [been] brought out at the discovery proceedings because it was yet inexistent at the time. The documents (Exhibits QQQ-1 to QQQ-5) were submarked for the reason that they were mentioned in the deposition (TSN, September 25, 1996, 99. 18-19). (Emphasis supplied.) 17

C.Rule 132 of the Rules of Court

The foregoing submissions notwithstanding, I humbly submit that the Court rightly dismisses the petition for certiorari on the ground that the Sandiganbayan did not gravely abuse its discretion in refusing to admit the documents offered by the Republic. To me, the Sandiganbayan did not abuse its discretion, least of all gravely, because the Republic did not comply with the requirement of authentication of private documents as a condition for their admission as evidence, and did not also satisfy the requirement of presenting public documents as evidence. AEDcIH

For purposes of their use as evidence in judicial proceedings, documents are classified into private and public. Rule 132 of the Rules of Court so specifies, viz.:

Section 19. Classes of Documents. — For the purpose of their presentation evidence, documents are either public or private.

Public documents are:

(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;

(b) Documents acknowledge before a notary public except last wills and testaments; and

(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered therein.

All other writings are private.

Properly classifying a document as public or private is crucial in determining its admissibility as evidence. A public document is admissible in evidence even without further proof of its due execution and genuineness, but a private document must be properly authenticated before it is admitted in evidence. 18 In short, the party offering the private document must first show, to the satisfaction of the court, that it was duly executed by the person who is claimed to have executed it. 19

Patula v. People 20 explains the need for authentication for private documents but not of public documents, thus:

The nature of documents as either public or private determines how the documents may be presented as evidence in court. A public document, by virtue of its official or sovereign character, or because it has been acknowledged before a notary public (except a notarial will) or a competent public official with the formalities required by law, or because it is a public record of a private writing authorized by law, is self-authenticating and requires no further authentication in order to be presented as evidence in court. In contrast, a private document is any other writing, deed, or instrument executed by a private person without the intervention of a notary or other person legally authorized by which some disposition or agreement is proved or set forth. Lacking the official or sovereign character of a public document, or the solemnities prescribed by law, a private document requires authentication in the manner allowed by law or the Rules of Court before its acceptance as evidence in court. The requirement of authentication of a private document is excused only in four instances, specifically: (a) when the document is an ancient one within the context of Section 21, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court; (b) when the genuineness and authenticity of an actionable document have not been specifically denied under oath by the adverse party; (c) when the genuineness and authenticity of the document have been admitted; or (d) when the document is not being offered as genuine. 21

The assailed documents, Exhibits "MMM" to "AAAAAAA," consisted of both private and public documents. For the private documents, the Republic should have duly authenticated them in accordance with Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, to wit:

Section 20. Proof of private document. — Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either:

(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or

(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.

Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be.

Section 20 permits only two methods of authentication, namely: (a) by testimony of a person who witnessed the execution of the document; or (b) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker of the document.

The documents categorized as private documents were composed of: (a) private letters; 22 (b) executive summary by a private entity; 23 (c) credit and property examination; 24 (d) affidavits/statements made by certain individuals; 25 (e) acknowledgment receipts/invoices issued by private individuals; 26 (f) checks and other bank/commercial documents; 27 and (g) agreement. 28 The records do not show that the Republic proved the authenticity of the private documents offered in evidence, however, because no competent witnesses had testified having seen any of the documents being executed, or because no evidence showed that the signatures appearing on the documents (if signed) were those of the purported signatories.

In some instances, like Exhibits "WWW" (Combined Credit and Property Checkings dated 18 October 1989 by Eastern Inspection Bureau on Phil. Eagle Mines, Inc.) and Exhibit "XXX" (Letter of Dominador Santiago to Asset Privatization Trust dated 20 Dec. 1990), the Republic justified their offer by stating that the original copies of said documents had been presented during the hearing. 29 But the presentation of the original copies alone did not apparently satisfy the rule on authentication, or exempt compliance with such rule. Indeed, authentication required affirmative action — an attestation by the party offering the document that the latter was what it purported to be. HEaCcD

As to the other private documents (e.g., Exhibit "WWWWW," Letter of Richard Lynch, Director of Hammer Galleries dated December 8, 1982 to Gallery Bleue, Rustan's Makati), the Republic claimed that they had been identified by witnesses during the trial. However, the witnesses who supposedly testified on the documents did not appear to be competent to identify and authenticate the documents in accordance with Rule 20, supra, either because they did not witness the execution or signing of the documents, or because they were not familiar with the signatures of the makers. 30 For instance, although Danilo Daniel testified on Exhibit "WWWWW" in his capacity as the Director for Research and Development of the PCGG, he was not shown to have been privy to the making or execution of the exhibit.

As to the exhibits classified as public documents, I note that they did not conform to the mode of proving public documents as delineated in Sections 23, 24, 25, 27, 28 and 30, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. Indeed, those rules prescribed — in lieu of authentication — the form and manner by which public documents could be offered as evidence in judicial proceedings.

Public documents classified under Section 19 (a) of Rule 132 must be proved in accordance with Section 24 of the Rule, to wit:

Section 24. Proof of official record. — The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office.

Some of the exhibits that fell under this category of public documents — (a) Exhibit "MMM" (Memorandum issued by Presidential Assistant, Juan C. Tuvera, to Hon. Teodoro Peña, Minister of Natural Resources); (b) Exhibit "RRR" (Complaint in Civil Case No. 89-5268); (c) Exhibit "SSS" (Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim in Civil Case No. 89-5268); (d) Exhibit "EEEE" (TSN of the testimony of Evelyn Singson); (e) Exhibit "VVVVV" (Memorandum dated June 6, 2003 of Director Danilo Daniel, PCGG Research and Development Department, to the PCGG Commissioners); and (f) Exhibit "BBBBBB" (Memorandum dated 23 April 2003 of Director Danilo Daniel, PCGG Research and Development Department, to PCGG Commissioners) — did not meet the requirement of proof because they merely plain photocopies. Exhibit "ZZZ" (Questioned Documents Report), although marked as "original," was inadmissible for lacking the attestation required by Section 24.

Exhibit "UUU" (RTC Order dated June 4, 1996 in Civil Case No. 89-5268), also a Section 19 (a) document, was a certified true copy of the original. However, the certification was made by Asset Privatization Trust, not by the Regional Trial Court that had apparently issued the order and held the legal custody of the document. It does not also appear that the certification was written in accordance with the form of attestation required by Section 25 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, to wit:

Section 25. What attestation of copy must state. — Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of evidence, the attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court.

I indicate at this point that in the hearing conducted on September 11, 2001 the Sandiganbayan already took judicial notice of matters that were sought to be proved by Exhibit "SSS" (Administrative Order No. 14), and Exhibit "TTT" (Contract between the government and DBP regarding the transfer of the latter's assets to the National Government), both of which were Section 19 (a) documents. As the consequence of the taking of judicial notice, no further proof was necessary to establish the matters such documents related to. Hence, discussing whether or not said exhibits were admissible or not would serve no practical purpose.

The rest of the exhibits, which were public records of private documents required by law to be entered therein, fell under Section 19 (c) of Rule 132. As to them, Section 7 of Rule 132 states:

Section 27. Public record of a private document. — An authorized public record of a private document may be proved by the original record, or by a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody.

The exhibits falling under this category were Exhibit "YYY to Exhibit YYY-33" (Articles of Incorporation of RIMCO, Treasurer's Affidavit, Certificate of Filing of Certificate of Increase of Capital Stock by RIMCO, Amended Articles of Incorporation); and Exhibit "DDDD" (SEC Records of PEMI). These exhibits, being mere photocopies not attested to by the Securities and Exchange Commission, were inadmissible. HCETDS

Finally, I hold that Exhibit "BBBB" (microfilm of "questioned documents") was more correctly classified as "object" instead of "documentary" evidence. This is evident from a reading of the purpose of its offer in evidence, which was: "To show that the subject documents containing the handwritten notes of Pres. Marcos were microfilmed." But Exhibit "BBBB," its nature as object evidence notwithstanding, still needed to be authenticated before admission in evidence. In its Motion for Reconsideration dated February 4, 2008 filed in the Sandiganbayan, the Republic had represented only that the original documents (referring to the microfilmed documents) had been presented at the trial by the Officer-in-Charge of the Malacañang Presidential Library. 31 The relevant microfilmed documents were not presented in court and identified by the custodian. Hence, Exhibit "BBB" should not be admitted in evidence.

ACCORDINGLY, I vote to DISMISS the petition for certiorari in accordance with the foregoing disquisition.

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 25-27; Penned by Associate Justice Edilberto G. Sandoval and concurred in by Associate Justices Teresita V. Diaz-Baldos and Samuel R. Martires.

2. Filed on 13 March 2007.

3. Docketed as Civil Case No. 0008.

4. Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 90478, 21 November 1991, 204 SCRA 212, 232-234.

5. Rollo, p. 159.

6. Id. at 160.

7. Id.

8. Sandiganbayan Resolution dated 17 February 1997; id. at 158-165.

9. Sandiganbayan Resolution dated 29 May 2002; id. at 179-180.

10. Attached as Annex "G" to the Petition; id. at 74-113.

11. Exhibits "EEE" to "EEEE-15," "O," "S," "XX," "DDD," "RRR," "SSS," "TTT," "UUU," "DDDD-1" to "DDDD-28," "TTTT," to "TTTT-3," "UUUUU" to "UUUUU-3," "AAAAAAA" to "AAAAAAA-9," "G," "II," "QQQ," "VVV," "AAAA," "AAAA-26," "III-1," "KKK-1," and "LLL."

12. Rollo, pp. 213-215.

13. Id. at 56-58.

14. Id. at 45-54.

15. Id. at 24-27; Sandiganbayan Resolution dated 3 June 2009.

16. Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 456 Phil. 755 (2003).

17. 264 Phil. 753 (1990).

18. Id. at 759-760.

19. Rollo, p. 164.

20. Id. at 29.

21. Id. at 58.

22. Rules of Court, Rule 130, Sec. 3.

23. Department of Education, Culture and Sports v. Del Rosario, 490 Phil. 194, 204 (2005).

24. Northwest Airlines v. Cruz and Court of Appeals, 376 Phil. 96 (1999).

25. Rollo, p. 30.

26. Id. at 25-26.

27. Supra note 4 at 222-228.

BERSAMIN, J., concurring and dissenting:

1. G.R. No. 90478, November 21, 1991, 204 SCRA 212.

2. Rollo, pp. 87-101.

3. Id. at 213-215.

4. Id. at 58.

5. G.R. No. 170604, September 2, 2013, 704 SCRA 465, 478-479.

6. 428 F.3d. 214 (2005).

7. Id. at 218-219.

8. E.g., Commonwealth v. Harris, 719 A.2d 1049, 1051 (1998); Nelson v. State Bd. of Veterinary Med., 938 A.2d 1163.

9. Id.

10. See Renfrew, Discovery Sanctions: A Judicial Perspective, 67 Cal. L.Rev. 2 (1979), p. 268.

11. Litigation-Ending Sanctions: Alaska Court's Use of Rule 37, 2 Alaska Law Review 77, 81.

12. G.R. No. 97654, November 14, 1994, 238 SCRA 88.

13. Id. at 93.

14. G.R. No. 164805, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 256, 271.

15. Steele v. Aramark Corp., 36 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 683 (2013).

16. Rollo, pp. 25-26.

17. Id. at 162-165.

18. Salas v. Sta. Mesa Market Corporation, G.R. No. 157766, July 12, 2007, 527 SCRA 465, 471.

19. Francisco, R.J., Basic Evidence, 1999 Edition, p. 277.

20. G.R. No. 164457, April 11, 2012, 669 SCRA 135.

21. Id. at 156-157.

22. Exhibits "NNN," "OOO," "PPP," "XXX," "AAAA-41," "WWWWW," "FFFFFF," "JJJJJJ," "TTTTTT," and "YYYYYY."

23. Exhibit "CCCC."

24. Exhibit "WWW."

25. Exhibits "FFFF," "TTTTTT," "UUUUU," "GGGGGG," "AAAAAAA," and "ZZZZZZ."

26. Exhibits "XXXXX to ZZZZZ," "CCCCCC," "LLLLLL," and "NNNNNN."

27. Exhibits "GGGG-SSSSS," "AAAAAA," "DDDDDD to EEEEEE," "IIIIII," "KKKKKK," "MMMMMM," "OOOOOO to SSSSSS," and "UUUUUU to XXXXXX."

28. Exhibit "HHHHHH."

29. Exhibit "CCCC."

Rollo, p. 35.

30. Id. at 117 and 122.

31. Id. at 35.