Herminio T. Disini Vs. Republic of the Philippines

G.R. No. 205172. June 15, 2021

DOCTRINE

Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or the rules on Evidence.130 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.131 "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."

FACTS:

The Republic through the PCGG filed a complaint for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages against Disini, President Marcos and Imelda Marcos (Imelda), for amassing ill-gotten wealth during President Marcos' term. Republic alleged that Disini received special concessions from President Marcos in relation to the award of the BNPP contract to Westinghouse and B&R, for a scandalously exorbitant amount. only the Republic presented evidence since Disini was a party in default.

April 11, 2012, the Sandiganbayan rendered its assailed Decision declaring the commissions in the amount of $50,562,500.00 received by Disini to be ill-gotten wealth and ordering him to account for and reconvey the said amount to the Republic.

In arriving at the total amount of commissions received by Disini from Westinghouse and B&R, the Sandiganbayan primarily relied on Exhibit E-9 which were photocopies, unauthenticated and not properly translated.

Disini argues that sine Exhibit E-9 was not authenticated, it should not have been admitted by the Sandiganbayan.

Hence, Disini filed a petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45. Meanwhile, on June 3, 2014, Disini died and was substituted in the suit by his heir Herminio Angel E. Disini, Jr.

ISSUE: Whether the Sandiganbayan violated the rule on authentication of documents under Section 120 of Ru1e 132 of the Rules of Court when it admitted and relied on Exhibit E-9

RULING:

YES

Clearly, Exhibit E-9 is a private document, thus it must be properly authenticated to be admissible and given probative value.

The receipt is inadmissible in evidence to determine the amount of commissions received by Disini for being unauthenticated and in violation of the Best Evidence Rule. Exhibit E-9 is a certified xerox copy. The Republic intends to prove the total amount of Commissions received by Disini by presenting his typewritten tabulation of cbmrnissions on his stationery. However, under the Best Evidence Rule, when the subject of inquiry is the content of a document, no evidence shall be admispible other than the original document itself subject to certain exceptions. Here; the Republic failed to offer any plausible reason or justification why it presented a mere photocopy instead of the original.

Since Exhibit E-9 was unauthenticated, and thus inadmissible in evidence as proof of the fact stated therein, the Sandiganbayan should not have relied thereon in determining the exact amount of commissions received by Disini. By doing so, it relied on documentary evidence whose due execution and genuineness were not established.

The documentary evidence presented by the plaintiff were only admitted as part of the testimony·of the witnesses. Therefore, these pieces of evidence do not have independent status. Its probative force depends entirely on the credibility of the testimony of the witness who identified the documents. Nevertheless, the contents of the document will be considered part of the narration of the witness.

Note: The Sandiganbayan did not err in finding Disini liable for the commissions he received from Westinghouse and B&R in relation to the BNPP project. The Republic had preponderantly proved the: (a) existence of the Westinghouse and B&R commissions and their respective commission agreements; . and (b) Disini's receipt thereof based on the testimonies of Jacob and Vergara. However, the Sandiganbayan erred in relying on Exhibit E-9 to determine the exact amount of commissions the Republic is entitled to recover.