View full case

REPUBLIC v. ALFREDO R. DE BORJA

FACTS:

This case involves an appeal by certiorari filed before the Supreme Court challenging the resolutions issued by the Sandiganbayan in a civil case. The complaint was filed by the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government, to recover alleged ill-gotten assets amassed by the individual respondents during the administration of President Ferdinand E. Marcos. One of the defendants in the case was Geronimo Z. Velasco, who was the President and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC). Respondent Alfredo De Borja is Velasco's nephew. The case revolves around the alleged diversion of address commissions by Velasco and the claim that De Borja collected these commissions on Velasco's behalf. After the submission of evidence, the Sandiganbayan granted De Borja's demurrer to evidence, finding that the evidence presented by the Republic was insufficient to hold De Borja liable. The Republic's motion for reconsideration was denied by the Sandiganbayan, leading to this appeal before the Supreme Court. The issue presented is whether the Sandiganbayan committed reversible error in granting De Borja's demurrer to evidence.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Petition is dismissible for failure to comply with the rules of court.

  2. Whether the dismissal of Civil Case No. 0003 renders the Petition moot and academic.

  3. Whether petitioner Republic was able to present sufficient evidence to prove the complicity of respondent De Borja.

  4. Whether the evidence presented is sufficient to prove that respondent De Borja acted as a dummy or conduit of Velasco in receiving address commissions.

  5. Whether there is proof that respondent De Borja received the envelopes allegedly delivered to his office.

  6. Whether the evidence submitted by the petitioner Republic is sufficient to support the allegations of the Complaint before the Sandiganbayan.

  7. Whether the grant of the Demurrer to Evidence by the Sandiganbayan is proper.

RULING:

  1. The Petition is dismissible for failure to comply with Section 5(d), Rule 56 of the Rules of Court.

  2. The dismissal of Civil Case No. 0003 does not render the Petition moot and academic.

  3. Petitioner Republic failed to present sufficient evidence to prove the alleged complicity of respondent De Borja.

  4. The evidence presented is insufficient to prove that respondent De Borja acted as a dummy or conduit of Velasco in receiving address commissions. The testimony of the witness, Verano, did not reasonably point or allude to such a conclusion. Verano did not know the contents of the envelopes when they were entrusted to him for delivery, and he did not even confirm De Borja's receipt of the envelopes. Additionally, Verano admitted that Velasco did not deal directly with brokers.

  5. There is no proof that respondent De Borja received the envelopes allegedly delivered to his office. Verano admitted that he did not and could not have known what was inside the sealed envelopes when they were in his possession. He also did not confirm De Borja's receipt of the envelopes despite having multiple opportunities to do so.

  6. The evidence submitted by the petitioner Republic is insufficient to support the allegations of the Complaint before the Sandiganbayan.

  7. The grant of the Demurrer to Evidence by the Sandiganbayan is proper.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. It questions whether the plaintiff has been able to establish a prima facie case.

  • Factual questions are not the proper subject of a petition for review under Rule 45, which is limited to questions of law.

  • Rules of procedure are subservient to substantive rights, and the court favors the resolution of disputes on the merits rather than on procedural defects.

  • The burden of proof in civil cases is on the plaintiff to establish his case by preponderance of evidence.

  • In a demurrer to evidence, the determination is whether the plaintiff's evidence entitles it to the relief sought, as the defendant has yet to present evidence.

  • The burden of proof rests upon the petitioner to establish its allegations in the complaint.

  • Speculative, conjectural, and inconclusive evidence cannot form the basis for a finding of liability.

  • Lack of knowledge of the contents of an envelope and absence of confirmation of receipt undermine the allegations against the respondent.

  • The petitioner has the burden of proof to establish its case by a preponderance of evidence.

  • A demurrer to evidence may be granted when the plaintiff or the complaining party failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain its allegations.

  • A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant or the accused after the plaintiff or the prosecution has rested its case.