The SC has ordered Disini, a close associate of former President Ferdinand Marcos, to pay the Republic temperate damages of 1B and exemplary damages of 1M in connection with the BNPP project.
The SC has ordered Disini, a close associate of former President Ferdinand Marcos, to pay the Republic temperate damages of 1B and exemplary damages of 1M in connection with the BNPP project.
G.R. No. 205172, June 15, 2021
HERMINIO T. DISINI, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
👨⚖️ HERNANDO, J.
Author's Note:
• Section 1(d) of the Freedom Constitution61 mandates the President to continue the exercise of legislative power until a legislature is elected and convened under a New Constitution. It vests in the President the power and duty to enact measures to achieve the mandate of the people, among others, "the [recovery] of ill-gotten properties amassed by the leaders and supporters of the previous regime and protect the interest of the people through orders of sequestration or freezing of assets of accounts."
• ... "In sum, in order to be considered as ill-gotten wealth, they must have: (a) originated from the government; and (b) been taken by former President Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, and close associates by illegal means."
• ..."contrary to the contention of Disini, ill-gotten wealth [also] encompasses those that are derived indirectly from government funds or properties through the use of power, influence, or relationship resulting in unjust enrichment and causing grave damage and prejudice to the Filipino people and the Republic. The alleged subject commissions [may not] have been sourced directly from the public funds [but] it is beyond cavil that Disini would not have amassed these commissions had he not exerted undue influence on President Marcos.
• Disini indirectly and unjustly enriched himself through his influence and close association with President Marcos by ensuring that the BNPP project would be awarded to Westinghouse and B&R. Besides, his alleged receipt of commissions from Westinghouse and B&R is clearly within the definition of ill-gotten wealth under the PCGG Rules and Regulations, that is, the receipt, directly or indirectly, of any commission from an entity in connection with any government contract or project.
• Disini's argument that he may not be held liable since he was not a public officer, or that there was no finding of conspiracy between him and President Marcos, deserves scant consideration. Suffice it to say that EO Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A (1986) clearly provide that ill-gotten wealth may be recovered from President Marcos' immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close associates, notwithstanding their private status. Undoubtedly, the Republic may recover ill-gotten wealth not only from President Marcos, Imelda and his immediate family but also from his dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business associates whether or not President Marcos is also found liable together with them.
• In light of the above issuances authorizing the recovery of ill-gotten wealth, there is no doubt that the Republic has a valid cause of action founded in EO Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A (1986).
Procedural matters:
• As a general rule, the Court's jurisdiction in a, Rule 45 petition is limited to the review of pure questions of law.
• Rule 45 does not allow the review of questions of fact because the Court is not a trier offacts.
• A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while a question of fact exists when there is doubt as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. The test in determining whether a question is one of law or of fact is whether the appellate court can resolve the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law. Any question that invites evaluation of the whole evidence, as well as their relation to each other and to the whole, is a question of fact and thus proscribed in a Rule 45 petition.
• The rule however a its of exceptions:
(1) [W]hen the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on misappreciation of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings, the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; and (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.
Under the Best Evidence Rule [Now the Original Document Rule, see the 2019 Revised Rules of Court, effective May 1, 2020) under Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document.
• The rule's purpose is to ensure that the exact contents of a writing are brought before the court, to act as an insurance against fraud and to protect against misleading inferences resulting from the intentional or unintentional introduction of selected portions of a larger set of writings. However, 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 case, secondary evidence may be admitted even without presenting the original.
• To stress, when the evidence presented concerns the existence, execution or delivery of the writing, without inference to its terms, the Best Evitlence Rule cannot be invoked. Clearly, Jacob is credible to testify on matt rs regarding Disini's receipt of commissions from Westinghouse and B&R and the manner of his participation as well as that of Herdis and its subsidiaries. Hence, his testimony and sworn affidavits must be accorded probative value.
• While We recognize that the defendant's right to due process of law must always be protected and upheld, We also acknowledge the Republic's tedious job, through the PCGG, in gathering evidence of ill-gotten wealth which is mostly cleverly concealed and not easily apparent and accessible given the nature of its illegality. We cannot just ignore the credible, candid and corroborated testimonial evidence on the pretext of lack of documentary evidence. Neither should We place superiority on the documentary evidence over the sworn testimonies of witnesses and vice versa. All admissible evidence should be weighed, considered and scrutinized by the court for and/or against parties to arrive at a judgment taking into consideration the quantum of evidence required.
• Hence, We affirm the Sandiganbayan' s ruling that Disini acquired illgotten wealth by receiving substantial commissions from Westinghouse and B&R in connection with the BNPP project by giving credence to Jacob and Vergara's testimonial evidence and the exhibits offered as part of their testimonies which are credible, categorical and corroborative. However, We cannot subscribe to the Sandiganbayan's conclusion that Disini is liable to reconvey the amount of $50,562,500.00.
• The importance of classifying documents into public or private is explained in Patula v. People,123 to wit:
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 in trument 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.
• Whether a document is public or private is relevant in determining its admissibility as evidence. Public documents are a missible in evidence even without further proof of their due execution and genuineness. On the other hand, private documents are inadmissible in evidence unless they are properly authenticated. Clearly, Exhibit E-9 is a private document, thus it must be properly authenticated to be admissible and given probative value.
Admissibility is different from
probative value:
• "[A]dmissibility of evidence should not be confused with its probative value. Admissibility refers to the question of whether certain pieces of evidence are to be considered at all, while probative value refers to the question of whether the admitted evidence proves an issue."128 "Thus, a particular evidence may be admissible, but its evidentiary weight depends on judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided by the rules of evidence."
• Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or the rules on evidence. Before any private document offered as authentic, such as Exhibit E-9, is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved by anyone who saw the document executed or written, or by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. "During authentication in court, a witness positively testifies that a document presented as dvidence is genuine and has been duly executed or that the document is neither spurious nor counterfeit nor executed by mistake or under duress."
• A document admitted as part of the testimony of a witness does not constitute proof of the facts stated therein. It merely forms part of the testimony of the witnessand does not have an independent status. Its probative force depends entirely on the credibility of the testimony of which it is a part of.
A party in default may not present
its own evidence:
• "A party in default loses [its] right to present evidence, control the proceedings, and examine or cross-examine witnesses." Such party has "no right to expect that [its] pleadings would be acted upon by the court nor may be object to or refute evidence or motions filed against [it]."
• However, while a party in default loses the right to present evidence, it retains the right to appeal as part of the remedies available to a party in default. The grounds that may be raised in such an appeal are restricted to any of the following:
• Indeed, a defending party declared in default retains the right to appeal from the judgment by default. However, the grounds that may be raised in such an appeal are restricted to any of the following: first, the failure of the plaintiff to prove the material allegations of the complaint; second, the decision is contrary to law; and third, the amount of judgment is excessive or different in kind from that prayed for. x x x
• A party in default is precluded from raising any other ground in its appeal from the judgment by default since, otherwise, it would then be allowed to adduce evidence in its defense, which right it had lost after it was declared in default.
• Nevertheless, it should be noted that while a party in default loses its right to present evidence, the court is still supposed to protect its right by rendering judgment in accordance with the evidence required by law. It may not admit nor rely on incompetent evidence:
• While it may be said that by defaulting, the defendant leaves himself at the mercy of the court, the rules nevertheless see to it that any judgment against him must be in accordance with the evidence required by law. The evidence of the plaintiff, presented in the defendant's absence, cannot be admitted if it is basically incompetent. Although the defendant would not be in a position to object, elementary justice requires that only legal evidence should be considered against him. If the same should prove insufficient to justify a judgment for the plaintiff, the complaint must be dismissed. And if a favorable judgment is justifiable, it cannot exceed in amount or be different in kind from what is prayed for in the complaint.
• Despite the failure uf the Republic to prove the total amount of commissions received by Disini, the Court fully recognizes its right to recover the ill-gotten wealth. Disirti is not at all entitled to these commissions as he illegally acquired them through the use of his influence and close relationship with President Marcos without rendering any service for the benefit of the Republic's BNPP project.
• Evidently, Disini unjustly enriched himself by receiving substantial commissions from Westinghouse and B&R and acting as the SSR in order to ensure the award of the BP project to the said companies by taking undue advantage of his close relationship with President Marcos. Article 22 of the Civil Code provides that that "[e]very person who through an act or performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him."
• There is unjust enrichment when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principals of justice, equity and good conscience. The principle of unjust enrichment essentially contemplates payment when there is no duty to pay, and the person who receives the payment has no right to receive it.
• Considering the relevant circumstances of this case, the amount of One Billion Pesos (P1,000,000,000.00) as temperate damages is reasonable and justified. It bears stressing that this is not just an ordinary civil action for recovery of property and d,amages. This is an action for recovery of ill-gotten wealth which is imbued ·with public interest and concerns not only the government but every Filipino citizen, then and now. As part of the healing process of this nation, the Freedom Constitution specifically mandates the President to prioritize the recovery of these ill-gotten wealth. Hence, the loss or injury suffered by every Filipino due to Disini's acquisition of ill-gotten wealth must be duly recognized and compensated.
Read full decision at
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2021junedecisions.php?id=649
FOLLOW US!
🛒 https://shopple.co/Lex-curiae
Comments
Post a Comment