Republic of the Phils.Petitioner, vs. Sandiganbayan, Tantoco, Marcos, Respondents.

G.R. No. 188881

April 21, 2014

The issue of the admissibility of documentary evidence arises only upon formal
offer thereof.
Objection to the documentary evidence must be made at the time it is formally
offered and not earlier.
Facts:
This is a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of court seeking to nullify the
Sandiganbayan Resolution.
The Second division of the graft court denied the admission of exhibits, MMM to
AAAAAAA in the formal offer of evidence filed by the petitioner republic.
The republic, twenty-four years ago through the PCGG (Presidential Commission on
Good Government) commenced a complaint for the reconveyance, reversion, accounting,
restitution and damages against the respondents.
Instead of filing an answer, the respondents filed a motion to strike out some portions
of the complaint and bill of particulars, which were denied.
They later on filed with the Sandiganbayan, an amended interrogatories to plaintiff and
a motion for production and inspection of documents which were duly granted and admitted.
PCGG elevated the issue to the SC which affirmed the orders of the Sandiganbayan.
Pre-trial commenced the PCGG produced documents which were pre-marked as exhibit
A to LLL and was declared closed.
The temporary markings of exhibits A to LLL with their submarkings were adopted. Due
to the objections of the respondents, the PCGG produced and caused the pre-marking of
additional documents, exhibits MMM to AAAAAAA.
The respondents filed a motion under Rule 29 of the rules of court contending that the
additional documents were never produced at the discovery procesdings and praying that
herein petitioner be sanctioned for contempt.
The said motion was denied by the Sandiganbayan.
The new documents not showed at discovery were still being marked when the trial
proceeded.
The respondents filed a motion to ban plaintiff from offering exhibits not earlier marked
during the discovery proceedings which was also denied by the court.
The petitioner filed its formal offer of evidence and the graft court ruled that with the
exception of some documents, all exhibits are denied admission.
The petitioner filed for a motion for reconsideration, the Sandiganbayan partly
admitted exhibits MMM to AAAAAAA and were turned over to its legal division.
In turn, the respondents filed their motion for reconsideration to which the graft court
granted the latters motion under rule 29 of the rules of court and to sanction the plaintiff for
its deliberate refusal and failure to comply with the directive of the court.

Issue:
The petitioner Republic now raises the sole issue of whether or not the
Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse in excluding the documents due to
petitioners own failure to produce them at the pre-trial.

Held:
NO. The exclusion of exhibits MMM to AAAAAAA, the Sandiganbayan properly
exercised its discretion over evidence formally offered by the prosecution.
Petitioner conveniently disregards the basic rule of evdience,the issue of the
admissibility of documentary evidence arises only upon formal offer thereof.
Objection to the documentary evidence must be made at the time it is
formally offered and not earlier.
The second resolution while issued after petitioner had already submitted its formal
offer of evidence, noted that all the documents contained therein were photocopies. The graft
court correctly excluded the said copies in its resolution.
The court also added that the inability of the presentation of a certified true copy in
instances that the subject of inquiry is the content of a document is justified under Rule 130 of
the rules of court.
Nothing on the record shows and petitioner itself it makes no claim that the exhibits
fall under any of the exceptions to the best evidence rule.
The SC 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 evidence.
After failing to submit the documentary evidence during discovery, when it was clearly
ordered by both the Sandiganbayan and the SC to do so, petitioner also repeatedly failed to
prove the due execution and its authenticity of the documents.
Wherefore, in view of the foregoing, the petition is denied for lack of merit.