Marydale C.

Manato
Best Evidence Rule/Secondary Evidence

REPUBLIC v. MARCOS-MANOTOC
[G. R. No. 171701, February 8, 2012]
FACTS:
After the EDSA People Power Revolution in 1986, President Corazon C. Aquino created the
Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG). PCGG was given the mandate to
investigate and recover the alleged ill-gotten wealth amassed by the then President
Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, relatives and associates.
On 16 July 1987, the PCGG, acting on behalf of the Republic with the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG), filed a Complaint for Reversion, Reconveyance, Restitution, Accounting
and Damages against Ferdinand E. Marcos, who was later substituted by his estate upon
his death; Imelda R. Marcos; and herein respondents Imee Marcos-Manotoc, Irene MarcosAraneta, Bongbong Marcos, Tomas Manotoc, and Gregorio Araneta III.
Four amended Complaints were thereafter filed imputing active participation and
collaboration of another persons, viz. Nemesio G. Co and Yeungs (Kam, Ho and Fan) of
Glorious Sun Fashion Manufacturing Corporation Phils.; and, Imelda Cojuangco for the
estate of Ramon Cojuangco and Prime Holdings, in the alleged illegal activities and
undertakings of the Marcoses in relation to the 200 Billion Pesos ill-gotten wealth
allegation.
Petitioner presented and formally offered its evidence against herein respondents.
However, the latter objected to the offer primarily on the ground that the documents
violated the best evidence rule of the Rules of Court, as these documents were
unauthenticated; moreover, petitioner had not provided any reason for its failure to
present the originals.
On 2002, the Sandiganbayan issued a RESOLUTION ADMITTING all the documentary
exhibits formally offered by the prosecution; however, their evidentiary value was left to
the determination of the Court.
Subsequently, Imelda R. Marcos, Imee Marcos-Manotoc and Bongbong Marcos, Jr.; Irene
Marcos-Araneta and Gregorio Ma. Araneta III;Yeung Chun Kam, Yeung Chun Ho and Yeung
Chun Fan; and the PEA-PTGWO filed their respective Demurrers to Evidence.
On 2005, the Sandiganbayan issued a resolution, granting all the demurrers to evidence
except the one filed by Imelda R. Marcos.
With regard to Imee Marcos-Manotoc, Bongbong Marcos, Jr., Irene Marcos, Gregorio
Araneta III and the YEUNGS, the court noted that their involvement in the alleged illegal
activities was never established; neither did the documentary evidence pinpoint their
involvement therein. The court held that all presented evidence are hearsay, for being

merely photocopies and that the originals were not presented in court, nor were they
authenticated by the persons who executed them.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the SANDIGANBAYAN correctly granted the DEMURRERS TO EVIDENCE
filed by the RESPONDENTS
RULING:
YES.
It is petitioners burden to prove the allegations; the operative act on how and in what
manner must be clearly shown through preponderance of evidence.
The petitioner does not deny that what should be proved are the contents of the
documents themselves. It is imperative, therefore, to submit the original documents that
could prove petitioners allegations. Thus, the photocopied documents are in violation of
best evidence rule, which mandates that the evidence must be the original document
itself. Furthermore, petitioner did not even attempt to provide a plausible reason why the
originals were not presented, or any compelling ground why the court such documents as
secondary evidence absent the affiants testimony.
The presentation of the originals of the aforesaid exhibits is not validly excepted under
Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. Under Section 3 (d), when the original document is a
public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office, the
original thereof need not be presented. However, all except one of the exhibits are not
necessarily public documents. The transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) of the
proceedings purportedly before the PCGG may be a public document but what the
plaintiff presented was a mere photocopy of the purported TSN which was not a certified
copy and was not even signed by the stenographer who supposedly took down the
proceedings. The Rules provide that when the original document is in the custody of a
public officer or is recorded in a public office; a certified copy issued by the public officer
in custody thereof may prove its contents.
In order that secondary evidence may be admissible, there must be proof by satisfactory
evidence of (1) due execution of the original; (2) loss, destruction or unavailability of all
such originals and (3) reasonable diligence and good faith in the search for or attempt to
produce the original. None of the abovementioned requirements were complied by the
plaintiff. Exhibits P, Q, R, S, and T were all photocopies. P, R, and T were
affidavits of persons who did not testify before the Court. Exhibit S is a letter, which is
clearly a private document. It is emphasized, even if originals of these affidavits were
presented, they would still be considered hearsay evidence if the affiants do not testify
and identify them.
Petitioner having failed to observe the best evidence rule rendered the offered
documentary evidence futile and worthless in alleged accumulation of ill-gotten wealth
insofar as the specific allegations herein were concerned. Hence, Sandiganbayan is
correct in granting the respondents respective Demurers to evidence.