Republic v. De Borja
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government, filed a complaint for "Accounting, Reconveyance, Forfeiture, Restitution, and Damages" before the Sandiganbayan (SB) against individuals allegedly having amassed ill-gotten assets during the administration of the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos. Respondent Alfredo R. De Borja (De Borja) is the nephew of Geronimo Z. Velasco (Velasco), then President and Chairman of the Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC). The Republic alleged that during Velasco's tenure, address commissions, typically five percent (5%) of total freight paid by vessel owners to PNOC as charterer, were not remitted to PNOC. Instead, these commissions were allegedly remitted to Decision Research Management Company (DRMC), an alleged conduit for these commissions, as per Velasco's instructions. The Republic further claimed that De Borja collected these address commissions on behalf of Velasco, acting as Velasco's dummy, nominee, and/or agent for corporations he owned or controlled, such as DRMC. The Republic's claim was primarily based on the testimony of Epifanio F. Verano (Verano). Procedural History: After the Republic presented its evidence, De Borja filed a Demurrer to Evidence, arguing that Verano testified he delivered sealed envelopes to Velasco, who instructed him to deliver them to De Borja, but Verano admitted he did not know the contents of the sealed envelopes, did not deliver them personally to De Borja, and did not confirm if De Borja received them. The SB, in a Resolution dated July 31, 2008, granted De Borja's Demurrer to Evidence, finding the evidence insufficient to prove De Borja's liability for damages, noting Verano's admissions and the inadmissibility of an affidavit by Jose M. Reyes intended to prove De Borja's participation in the utilization of public funds. The Petition: The Republic filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the SB on March 25, 2009. Consequently, the Republic filed an Appeal by Certiorari before the Supreme Court, seeking to set aside the SB's Resolutions and arguing that the SB erred in granting the Demurrer to Evidence and denying its Motion for Reconsideration. The Supreme Court noted De Borja's argument regarding the Republic's failure to submit proof of service on the Sandiganbayan but dispensed with the lapse in the interest of justice, and addressed De Borja's claim that the petition was moot and academic due to the dismissal of the main case against other respondents, stating that the dismissal of the case against other respondents did not render the appeal concerning De Borja's liability moot.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed reversible error in granting respondent De Borja's Demurrer to Evidence. Whether the evidence presented by the Republic was sufficient to establish a prima facie case against respondent De Borja.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the Petition and affirmed the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan dated July 31, 2008, and March 25, 2009, which granted respondent De Borja's Demurrer to Evidence. The Court found that the evidence adduced by the Republic was wholly insufficient to support the allegations of the Complaint before the Sandiganbayan.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Sandiganbayan committed reversible error in granting respondent De Borja's Demurrer to Evidence: The Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan's ruling. A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss based on the insufficiency of the plaintiff's evidence to establish a prima facie case. The Supreme Court reiterated that factual questions are generally not subject to review under Rule 45, and it defers to the factual findings of the trial court. In this case, the Court found that the evidence presented by the Republic against De Borja consisted only of the testimony of Verano and the affidavit of Jose M. Reyes. The affidavit of Reyes was deemed inadmissible as hearsay because Reyes died before he could testify. Therefore, it could not establish a prima facie case. The Court's review was confined to determining if the Republic was entitled to the relief sought based on its presented evidence. On the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the Republic: The Court found the evidence insufficient. The testimony of Verano was presented to prove that De Borja collected address commissions. However, Verano testified that he delivered sealed envelopes to Velasco, who instructed him to deliver them to De Borja's office. Crucially, Verano admitted that the envelopes were sealed, he did not open them, and therefore had no knowledge of their contents. Furthermore, Verano did not personally deliver the envelopes to De Borja and never confirmed whether De Borja actually received them. He also testified that De Borja was not present when he left the envelopes at his office, and he received no word that they reached De Borja. The Court emphasized that these circumstances rendered the insinuations of De Borja's complicity speculative, conjectural, and inconclusive. The evidence did not reasonably point to De Borja acting as a dummy or conduit for Velasco in receiving commissions. The Court concurred with the Sandiganbayan's observation that Verano lacked knowledge of the envelopes' contents and did not confirm their receipt by De Borja. Consequently, the Republic failed to establish its case by a preponderance of evidence, warranting the grant of the demurrer.
Main Doctrine
A demurrer to evidence is granted when the plaintiff fails to present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case. The evidence must be sufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain an issue. Hearsay evidence, such as an affidavit from a deceased affiant who did not testify, is inadmissible and cannot establish a prima facie case. Furthermore, testimony regarding sealed envelopes with unknown contents, where receipt by the accused is unconfirmed, is insufficient to prove liability.