FIRST DIVISION

APRIL 4, 2018

G.R. No. 198393

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner
vs
RODOLFO M. CUENCA, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, IMELDA R. MARCOS, ROBERTO S. CUENCA, MANUEL I. TINIO, VICTOR AFRICA, MARIO K. ALFELOR, DON M. FERRY and OSCAR BELTRAN,, Respondents

D E C I S I O N

TIJAM, J.:

Petitioner Republic of the Philippines (Republic), represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), assails through this petition for review1 under Rule 45, the Decision2 dated August 5, 2010 of the Sandiganbayan in Civil Case No. 0016 which dismissed, for insufficiency of evidence, the Republic's complaint for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages. Likewise assailed is the Sandiganbayan's Joint Resolution3 dated August 31, 2011 dismissing the Republic's motion for reconsideration.

The Antecedents

On July 24, 1987, the Republic, through the PCGG and assisted by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a complaint4 for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages against respondents Rodolfo M. Cuenca, Ferdinand E. Marcos,5 Imelda R. Marcos, Roberto S. Cuenca, Manuel I. Tinio, Jose L. Africa, Mario K. Alfelor,6 Don M. Ferry and Oscar P. Beltran,7 together with other individuals namely, Saul Y. Alfonso, Nora O. Vinluan, Panfilo O. Domingo, Roberto V. Ongpin, Ricardo P. de Leon, Arturo Lazo, Arthur C. Balch, Rodolfo M. Munsayac, and Antonio L. Carpio. The complaint was later amended to include corporate defendants8 alleged to be beneficially owned or controlled by respondent Rodolfo M. Cuenca.9

Through its complaint and its amendments, the Republic sought to recover from respondents alleged ill-gotten wealth which they acquired in unlawful concert with one another, in breach of trust, and with grave abuse of right and power, which resulted to their unjust enrichment during Ferdinand E. Marcos' rule from December 30, 1965 to February 25, 1986. 10

Specifically, the Republic enumerated the alleged illegal acts committed by respondents in this wise:

12. Defendant, Rodolfo M. Cuenca, by himself, and/or in unlawful concert with defendants Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos, taking undue advantage of his influence and association and with the active collaboration and willing participation of above defendant spouses, engaged in schemes, devices and strategems designed to unjustly enrich themselves and to prevent disclosure and discovery of ill-gotten assets, among others:

(a) created, organized and managed the Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines (CDCP), originally from a company known as "Cuenca Construction" and, with the active collaboration, knowledge, assistance and willing participation of defendants Jose L. Africa, Nora O. Vinluan, Roberto S. Cuenca, and Panfilo 0. Domingo, obtained favored public works contracts amounting to billions of pesos from the Department of Public Works which later became the Department of Public Highways, and from the National Irrigation Administration, such as the construction of sugar centrals, the Philippine Associated Smelting and Refining Corporation (P ASAR), the Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer Corporation (PHILPHOS), and the Light Railway Transit Project (LRT), among others, under terms and conditions manifestly disadvantageous to Plaintiff and the Filipino people;

(b) secured loans and financial assistance fro[m] government financial institutions without sufficient collateral, in contravention of banking laws and sound banking practices, and other terms and conditions manifestly disadvantageous to said government institutions, the plaintiff and the Filipino people. Defendant Panfilo O. Domingo, as director and president of one of these government financial institutions - the Philippine National Bank, abetted, facilitated and collaborated in the illegal execution and release of such loans and financial assistance to CDCP, among other corporations of defendant Rodolfo M. Cuenca, in violation of law, sound banking practice and his duty of loyalty and due care to PNB, to its extreme damage and prejudice and that of plaintiff and the Filipino people;

(c) secured a favored rescue arrangement at the behest of defendants Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos in the form, among others, of conversion of multimillion peso debt in favor of NDC into equity, release of collaterals to CDCP of government funds in violation of the outstanding policy that no such funds shall be paid to persons and/or corporations which have obligations with the government, through the illegal and unconstitutional use of the Letters of Instructions, to the grave damage and prejudice of plaintiff and the Filipino people;

(d) acquired, through Galleon Shipping Corporation, which was beneficially held and/or controlled by defendant Rodolfo M. Cuenca, vessels with dollar loans from abroad, on guarantee of the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), for clearly overpriced consideration including improper payments, such as bribes, kickbacks and commissions given to defendants, which loans remain unpaid to date, to the gross disadvantage of plaintiff and the Filipino people;

(e) secured, after Galleon Shipping Corporation defaulted in its obligations, additional financial assistance from government institutions, through the issuance of Letter of Instruction No. 1155, which required the National Development Company (NDC) to buy out the entire shareholdings in Galleon Shipping Corporation of defendant Rodolfo M. Cuenca, Arthur C. Balch, Manuel I. Tinio, Mario K. Alfelor, Rodolfo Munsayac and those of other stockholders for ₱46.7 Million and to provide the required additional equity;

(f) caused NDC to purchase worthless shares of defendant Rodolfo M. Cuenca in CDCP at par value to the detriment of government institutions and plaintiff;

(g) conspired and executed with the help, cooperation and participation of the other defendants, such other schemes and devices to defraud plaintiff and its agencies millions of pesos for their personal benefit;

(h) willingly participating in defendants Rodolfo M. Cuenca, Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos' scheme to enrich themselves at the expense of plaintiff and the Filipino people, defendants Antonio L. Carpio, Manuel I. Tinio, Arthur C. Balch, Mario K. Alfelor, Rodolfo Munsayac, Roberto V. Ongpin and Don M. Ferry unlawfully caused NDC to release ₱46.7 Million to Galleon Shipping Corporation; allowed defendant Rodolfo M. Cuenca to continue running the Galleon Shipping Corporation; released defendant Rodolfo M. Cuenca's counter-guarantees for the security of the loans guaranteed by the NOC and DBP and, released the first mortgage of DBP over vessels owned by Galleon Shipping Corporation, thereby resulting in substantial loss of government funds, to the prejudice and damage of plaintiff and the Filipino people;

(i) organized the Universal Holding Corporation, a holding company for CDCP, Sta. Ines Melale, and Resort Hotels, all beneficially held and/or controlled by Ferdinand E. Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos and Rodolfo M. Cuenca, which corporations with the help, cooperation and participation of defendants Jose L. Africa, Roberto Cuenca, Manuel Tinio, Mario Alfelor, Rodolfo Munsayac, Arthur Balch, Nora O. Vinluan, Ricardo de Leon, among others as directors, officers and/or agents thereof, served as conduits for deposit abroad of illegally obtained funds and property;

(j) transferred, through the Security Bank and Trust Company, US$8 Million to CDCP International Bank account with Irving Trust, N.Y., which amount was utilized by defendant Ferdinand E. Marcos m1d Imelda R. Marcos in the purchase of New York properties.

13. Defendants Oscar P. Beltran and Saul Y. Alfonso of the Merchants Construction and Development Corporation, Ricardo P. De Leon and Arturo Lazo of Tierra Factors Corporation, participated and/or allowed themselves at one time or another to be used in achieving the schemes, devises and strategems of defendants Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos to enrich themselves at the expense of plaintiff and the Filipino people.

14. The acts of defendants, singly or collectively, and/or in unlawful concert with one another constitute brazen abuse of right and power, unjust enrichment, flagrant breach of public trust and fiduciary obligations, acquisition of position and authority, violation of the Constitution and laws of the Republic of the Philippines, to the grave and irreparable damage of plaintiff and the Filipino people. 11

The Sandiganbayan dismissed the case as against Arturo Lazo and Ricardo P. de Leon for failure to state a cause of action. Imelda R. Marcos was designated as Ferdinand E. Marcos' legal representative upon the latter's death in 1989, while Arthur C. Balch's heirs 12 were substituted as defendants. Saul Y. Alfonso, Mario K. Alfelor, Rodolfo M. Munsayac, Don M. Ferry and Sta. Ines Melale Veneer and Plywood, Inc., filed their respective answers but did not participate in the proceedings. 13

In support of its complaint, the Republic presented the testimonies of Ma. Lourdes O. Magno (PCGG Records Officer II), Evelita E. Celis (Financial Analyst V of the PCGG's Research and Intelligence Department), Evelyn R. Singson (Executive Vice-President of Security Bank and Trust Company), Atty. Orlando L. Salvador (Coordinator and Legal Consultant of the Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans) and Stephen P. Tanchuling (Records Officer V of PCGG's Research Department).14

The testimonies of the witnesses for the Republic are summarized by the Sandiganbayan in its assailed Decision as follows:

Ma. Lourdes O. Magno was Records Officer II of the PCGG from May 1992 up to the time of her testimony in January 1999. Magno was custodian of the records for the PCGG, including the documents in this case, marked as Exhibits "A" to "Y" for the [petitioner]. She testified that while some of the records of the PCGG were turned over by the previous Chairman and Commissioners of the PCGG and others came from its Research Department, she could not determine how each particular document was obtained by the PCGG. .

Evelita E. Celis was Financial Analyst V of the Research and Intelligence Department of the PCGG since February 17, 1992. She testified that the main function of their department was to conduct research, gather, evaluate and analyze the data, and then to prepare a comprehensive report to be submitted to the PCGG's Legal Department for verification reports. She prepared the report entitled, "Executive Summary of Rodolfo M. Cuenca, SB Case No. 0016" after she had analyzed the documents pertinent to this case. However, she stated that she had no personal knowledge of the transactions involved in said documents. The documents were gathered by the staff of the Intelligence Division from various sources such as the Presidential Library, the Asset Privatization Trust, the Office of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and from the files of the Behest Loans cases.

Evelyn R. Singson was Executive Vice President of Security Bank and Trust Company from 1980 to 1986. She testified that she executed an Affidavit on August 18, 1986 in co1mection with the efforts of the government to recover the Marcos wealth.

Atty. Orlando L. Salvador was coordinator and legal consultant of the Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans. He testified that the said committee was created on October 8, 1992 by then President Fidel Ramos by virtue of his issuance of Administrative Order No. 30 (A.O. No. 30). On November 9, 1992, President Ramos issued Memorandum Order No. 61 (M.O. No. 61), which broadened the scope of the Ad Hoc Committee to include investigation, inventory and study of all non-performing loans, both behest and non-behest. When the Committee had concluded its investigation, including its review and examination of the account of the PNCC, Salvador made an Executive Summary thereof and submitted it to then President Ramos. The same report was attached to his complaint affidavit which was subsequently filed before the Ombudsman on May 18, 1994 against the defendants.

On cross-examination, Salvador claimed that although he sat in the deliberations of the Committee as its consultant and was asked for his opinion on certain matters, he was not given the opportunity to vote. However, he had no personal knowledge of the different transactions making up the account and his participation was limited to summarizing the report which he digested into his Executive Summary. He reiterated that he did not interview parties involved in the transactions of the behest loans, but only reviewed the findings and reports submitted to him because his role was to ascertain whether the reports faithfully reflected the circumstances of each account as stated in the documents. Also, he alleged that he did not indict the Marcoses in his complaint affidavit despite their participation in the form of marginal notes on the documents subject of his report because the marginal notes were only favorable endorsements and did not qualify under the definition of behest loans. He further reasoned that it was up to the Ombudsman to determine who should be the defendants in a criminal case.

Stephen P. Tanchuling was Records Officer V of the Research Department of the PCGG for more than four years at the time he gave his testimony. He testified that it was his job to secure documents from the concerned agencies, then to collate the same upon order of the Legal Department. He claimed that the Research Department prepared the official report entitled "Executive Summary on Rodolfo Cuenca (SB Case No. 0016)" and that most of its supporting documents came from the Presidential Library in Malacañang. While he attested that the supporting documents were certified true copies, he admitted that he did not ask the Records Custodian if said copies were based on actual originals existing in their departments.15

The Republic then proceeded to formally offer its documentary evidence. Acting on the Republic's formal offer of evidence, as well as the comments/oppositions filed by the respondents, the Sandiganbayan resolved to admit only the following exhibits: 16

Exhibit	Description	Purpose
A-4	I PD No. 1112 dated 31 March 1997, Authorizing the Establishment of Toll Facilities on Public Improvements, Creating a Board for the Regulation Thereof and for Other Purposes.	To show that deposed president Marcos used vast totalitarian powers to favor cronies and herein defendants for the purpose of perpetrating ill-gotten wealth through conduit corporations including CDCP, its subsidiaries, and other corporations herein involved.
A-5	PD No. 1113 dated 31 March 1997, granting the CDCP a Franchise to Operate, Construct and Maintain Toll Facilities in the North and South Luzon Toll Expressways and for other purposes.	-do-
A-6	PD 1984 issued in 1983, extending the duration of the franchise of CDCP for another thirty (30) years.	-do-
A-14	LOI No. 1136 issued on 27 May 1981 by Pres. Marcos, directing DBP and/or NDC to guarantee a financial restructuring of $150 million to $200 million for CDCP.	To show the indispensable cooperation of defendant Antonio L. Carpio in his capacity as Chairman of the NDC in siphoning and manipulating government funds, as part of the ill-gotten wealth amassed by the defendants.
A-18	LOI No. 1107 dated 16 February 1981 directing the government to determine the need for an industrial rehabilitation program to assist financially distressed companies.	To show how the late President Marcos issued orders for his and his cronies' personal gain and benefit.
A-20	LOI No. 1295 issued by President Marcos on 23 February 1983, directing the DBP, PNB, GSIS, LBP, NDC and Phil Guarantee to convert the loan obligations of CDCP into shares of common stock.	To show that defendant Rodolfo Cuenca obtained a favored rescue arrangement at the behest of President Marcos through the conversion of a multi-million peso debt in favor of NDC and other government :financial institutions into equity, the release of collaterals to CDCP, its subsidiaries and affiliates, notwithstanding that it had unpaid obligations and the security of payments to CDCP of government funds in violation of the standing policy against such payments to persons as firms having obligations with the government and to show the involvement of the other defendants who were officers of the above government financial institutions including Antonio L. Carpio and the codefendants mentioned under Exhibit A-9.
A-60	LOI No. 1296 issued on 23 February 1981, which directed the PNB to release its security interests on certain assets of CDCP and those of its two wholly owned subsidiaries namely, the Marina Properties Corp. (MPC), and the Manila Land Corp. (MLC).	(a) To show that President Marcos committed grave, blatant, and open abuse of authority and excesses and plundered the government funds to favor private interest of CDCP; (b) To show that the CDCP and its affiliates are dummies and conduit corporations of President Marcos in amassing ill-gotten wealth and plunder of the national wealth and treasury.
A-61	LOI No. 1297 issued on 23 February 1981, directing all government · ministries, bureaus, agencies and corporations with outstanding payables to CDCP to expedite payment of the same.	To show the magnitude and special favors given by Pres. Marcos to CDCP, to the point of issuing an LOI in the exercise of law-making power, thus showing that CDCP and its affiliates are dummies and conduit corporations of Pres. Marcos.
A-69	LOI No. 1155 dated 21 July 1981, directing a rehabilitation plan for Galleon Shipping Corp.	a) To show the use of totalitarian power by Pres. Marcos for the private interests of Galleon Shipping Corp. b) To justify sequestration and reversion of the prope1iies herein involved to the state.
D	Administrative Order No. 13 dated 8 October 1992 issued by the president of the Philippines, creating a Presidential Ad Hoc Fact Finding Committee on Behest Loans.	a) To lay the legal and factual basis for the recovery of behest loans extended by Pres. Marcos to his cronies, relatives and friends. b) To criminally prosecute officials and persons involved.
E	Memorandum Order No. 61 dated 9 November 1992 issued by the President of the Philippines, broadening the scope of the Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans.	-do-
G-1	Copy of Memorandum Order No. 91.	-do-
M	I Decision dated July 10, 2000 in SEC Case No. 05 96 5357, entitled, Rodolfo M Cuenca v. [PNCC}, et al.	To show that the SEC hearing panel dismissed Rodolfo M. Cuenca's complaint to annul the shares of capital stocks issued to therein defendants GFIs pursuant to LOI 1295.
N	Order dated August 8, 2000 in SEC Case No. 807 entitled, Rodolfo M Cuenca v. Hon. Alberto P. Atas, et al., issued by the SEC En Banc.	To show that the SEC En Banc affirmed the July 10, 2000 Decision of the SEC Hearing Panel, thus dismissing Rodolfo Cuenca's appeal of the July 10, 2000 Decision.
O	Decision dated 29 November 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA- G.R. SP No. 60366, entitled, Rodolfo M Cuenca v. Hon. Alberto P. Atas, et al.	To show that the Court of Appeals affirmed the 8 August 2000 Order of the SEC En Banc thus denying Rodolfo M. Cuenca's appeal of the said Order.
P	Entry of Judgment in CA- G.R. SP No. 60366 entered in the Book of Entries of Judgments stating the Finality of the 29 November 2000 Decision of the Court of Appeals.	To show that the Nov. 29, 2000 Decision of the Court of Appeals denying Cuenca's appeal of the Decision dismissing his Complaint had become final and executory on December 29, 2000.
R	Resolution dated 14 February 2001 of the Honorable Supreme Court in G.R. No. 146214.	To show that the Supreme Court denied Rodolfo Cuenca's petition in its Resolution dated 14 February 2001.
T	Resolution of the Supreme Court dated 7 March 2001.	To show that the Supreme Court granted Cuenca's Motion for Reconsideration thus reinstating his petition.
U	Complaint dated 29 May 1996 filed before SEC SICD in SEC Case No. 0596 5357 by Rodolfo M. Cuenca.	To show that Rodolfo Cuenca filed a complaint to annul the shares issued to defendant GFIs before the SEC.
U-1	Par. No. 3 of the Complaint.	To show that Cuenca admitted that he was and still is a registered stockholder of PNCC/CDCP although some of his shares therein have been sequestered by the PCGG.
U-2	Par. No. 4.1, page 3 of the Complaint.	To show that Cuenca admitted that in 1982 he controlled the management of PNCC/CDCP and that he was its President and Chief Executive Officer.
U-3	Signature of. Rodolfo M. Cuenca on page 14 of the Complaint.	To show the authenticity of the Complaint.
V	Amended Complaint dated 20 March 1998	-do-
V-1	Pars. 3 and 4, page 3 of the Amended Complaint.	To show that Cuenca admitted that he was and still is a registered stockholder of PNCC although some of his shares have been sequestered by the PCGG and that he and the Cuenca Investment Corporation has 3,254,148 shares in PNCC or a percentage of 4.98%.
V-2	Par. 4.1 of the Amended Complaint	To show that Cuenca admitted that he controlled the management of PNCC in 1982 and that he was its President and Chairman.
V-3	Signature of Roberto S. Cuenca, Rodolfo M. Cuenca's son on page 30 of the Amended Complaint.	To show the authenticity of the amended complaint.
w	Second Amended Complaint dated 19 June 2000.	Same as in Exhibit U.
W-1	Pars. 3 and 4, page 3 of the Second Amended Complaint.	To show that Cuenca admitted that he was and still is a registered stockholder of PNCC although some of his shares have been sequestered by the PCGG and that he and his Cuenca Investment Corp. owns 5% of the shares; and that he controlled management of PNCC in 1982 and that he was its President and Chief Executive Officer.
W-2	Signature of Rodolfo M. Cuenca on page 19 of the Second Amended Complaint.	To show the authenticity of the Second Amended Complaint.
X	Third Amended Complaint dated 5 May 1998 filed in Civil Case No. 985 1356 entitled, Rodolfo M. Cuenca, for and in behalf of the Philippine National Construction Corp. v. Asset Privatization Trust, GSIS, PNB, DBP, NDC, LBP and P EFLGC, before Branch 142, RTC, Makati.	To show that Cuenca filed a complaint praying that defendant GFIs be ordered to strictly comply with LOI 1295 and to immediately convert all their loan credits against PNCC into shares of common stocks in PNCC.
X-1	Par. 1 of the Third Amended Complaint.	To show that Cuenca admitted that at all relevant times, he was and still is a registered stockholder of PNCC.
X-2	Signature of Rodolfo M. Cuenca on page 12 of the Third Amended Complaint.	To show the authenticity of the Third Amended Complaint.

Petitioner's other documentary evidence which were mere photocopies were excluded by the Sandiganbayan pursuant to the best evidence rule under Section 3, Rule 130.17 Subsequently, Nora O. Vinluan, Panfilo O. Domingo, Antonio L. Carpio and Roberto V. Ongpin filed their respective demurrers to evidence which were granted by the Sandiganbayan, and thus, the complaint as against them was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. 18

On the other hand, respondents Rodolfo M. Cuenca, Roberto S. Cuenca and Manuel I. Tinio presented the testimonies of Rodolfo M. Cuenca and Atty. Cinderella B. Benitez (Securities Counsel III of the Company Registration Monitoring Department of the Securities and Exchange Commission).

Rodolfo M. Cuenca's testimony was offered for the following purposes:

That the defendant Rodolfo M. Cuenca would testify that there is no truth to any of the allegations against him in the third amended complaint which stated that he and/or in unlawful concert with then President and Mrs. Ferdinand E. Marcos, taking advantage of his influence and association with and active collaboration of defendants spouses engaged in schemes, devices and stratagems designed to unjustly enrich themselves and to prevent disclosure and discovery of ill-gotten assets; by among others, a) organized and managed the CDCP by obtaining favored public work contracts under conditions manifestly disadvantageous to the government; b) secured loans and favored assistance from government financial institutions without sufficient collateral manifestly disadvantageous to said institutions; c) secured favored financial assistance for CDCP from President and Mrs. Marcos; d) government acquired the Galleon Shipping then owned by him on disadvantageous terms; e) secured favored assistance from NDC, and the other charges therein; and to rebut whatever evidence plaintiff adduced; to show that he was in fact and is a legitimate businessman who pursued his profession with dedication and whatever assets he may have acquired are the fruits of his honest labor and industry, and not thru any illegal means. 19

Rodolfo M. Cuenca's testimony is summarized in the assailed Decision as follows:

Co-defendant Rodolfo, a businessman, denied having created the Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines (CDCP), now the Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC), to obtain favored work contracts amounting to billions of pesos. He testified that he created the CDCP along with other businessmen, contractors and bankers using their own finances, then undertook projects in the Philippines and abroad, all of which were secured through public bidding. He also claimed that they funded constructions by borrowing money from local and American banks, government financial institutions, and by using the funds of their own shareholders.

On cross-examination, Rodolfo averred that he did not file a case for collection of a sum of money against government agencies as he relied on good representation with the government to help him. He also asserted that in 1981, the CDCP had no loan that was due or unpaid and, based on a study previously conducted, the CDCP was in good financial condition before February 1983.20

On the other hand, the testimony of Atty. Cinderella B. Benitez was offered for the purpose of presenting and identifying certified copies of Construction Development Corporation of the Philippines' (CDCP's) Articles of Incorporation, By Laws and Financial Statements from 1981.21

Respondents then formally offered the following documentary evidence:

Exhibit	Description	Purpose
1	Certified machine copy of CDCP's Articles of Incorporation from SEC consisting of several pages x x x	a) To prove that CDCP is a duly organized company for legitimate purposes under Philippine Laws. b) To prove that defendant Rodolfo M. Cuenca did not organize and manage CDCP to prevent disclosure and discovery of ill-gotten assets as Exhibit 1 is a public record, easily accessible with the SEC.
2	First three (3) paragraphs of P.D. 1113, the Whereas clauses x x x.	a) To prove that the Philippine Government's grant of franchise to CDCP to operate, construct and maintain toll facilities in the North and South Luzon Toll Expressways realization was for the of the Government's legitimate developmental goals.
3	First three (3) paragraphs of LOI 1136, the Whereas clauses xxx	a) To prove that the LOI was issued for a legitimate reason this was that the rehabilitation of CDCP was for the best interest of the Philippine Government.
4	Documents reflecting the stockholdings of CDCP before and after the implementation of LOI 1295, given by LC Diaz [&] Co., the transfer agent of CDCP, consisting of two (2) pages x x x	a) To prove that CDCP is a duly organized company under Philippine Laws. b) To prove that defendant Rodolfo M. Cuenca did not organize and manage CDCP to prevent disclosure and discovery of ill-gotten assets as Exhibits 4, 4-A and 5 will show that it is a legitimate publicly held corporation.
4-A	Page 2 of Exhibit 4	-do-
5	Certification by L.C. Diaz & [Co.]. of the distribution of the total voting and nonvoting shares/ stockholdings of the Philippine National Construction Corporation [formerly CDCP] as of 30 May 1991 xx x	-do-
6	Comparative Financial Statements of CDCP/PNCC from 1981-2005, consisting of four (4) pages x x x	a) To show that at the time CDCP was being managed by defendant Rodolfo M. Cuenca until the government took over thereof in 1983 the business was earning a profit but thereafter, after the take over of CDCP in 1983, PNCC suffered losses. This goes to show that the take over did not serve to rehabilitate CDCP as contemplated by LOI 1295 nor did it favor defendant Rodolfo M. Cuenca.
7	Certified Machine Copy of the Articles of Incorporation of CDCP issued 22 November 1966, consisting of fourteen (14) pages, including the Certificate of Incorporation plus the attached Treasurer's Affidavit, consisting of sixteen (16) pages.	a) To prove that CDCP is a duly organized company for legitimate purposes under Philippine Laws. b) To prove that defendant Rodolfo M. Cuenca did not organize and manage CDCP to prevent disclosure and discovery of ill-gotten assets as Exhibits 7, 7-A, 8 and 8-A are of public record, easily accessible with the SEC.
7-A	Certificate of Filing plus the Amended Articles of Incorporation which was approved 7 December 1983	-do-
8	By-Laws of the CDCP, consisting of fourteen (14) pages together with the Certtficate of Filing dated 29 November 1966	-do-
8-A	Amended By-Laws approved in July 1982	-do-
9	Financial Statements of CDCP for the period ending 31 December 1982 and 1981	a) To prove that CDCP is a legitimate corporation, in religious compliance with the reportorial requirements of the SEC. b) To prove that defendant Rodolfo M. Cuenca did not organize and manage CDCP to prevent disclosure and discovery of ill-gotten assets.
9-A	Financial Statement for the period ending 31 December 1996 and 1995	-do-
9-B	Audit Report for the years ending 1996 and 1995	-do-
9-C	Balance Sheet as of 31 December 1996	-do-
9-D	Audit Report for the years 1997 and 1996	-do-
9-E	Audit Report for the period 31 December 1998 and 1997	-do-
9-F	Audit Report for the years ending 31 December 2001 and 2000	-do-
9-G	Audit Report for the years ending 31 December 2000 and 1999	-do-
9-H	Audit Report for the year -ending 31 December 2002	-do-
9-I	Audit Report for the year ending 31 December 2005	-do-
10	LOI 1296 [Exhibit A-60] the first three (3) paragraphs, the Whereas clauses xx x	a) To prove that LOI 129[5] was issued for a legitimate purpose, i.e., to expedite the rehabilitation of CDCP for the best interest of the Philippine Government.22

These documentary evidence were all admitted by the Sandiganbayan. Thereafter, the parties were directed to submit their respective memoranda. 23

The Ruling of the Sandiganbayan

On August 5, 2010, the Sandiganbayan rendered its presently assailed Decision dismissing the Republic's complaint for insufficiency of evidence. In analyzing the documentary evidence presented by the Republic and which were admitted by the SC:1-ndiganbayan, the latter observed that the same merely consisted of the executive issuances of then President Marcos and of court decisions and resolutions. According to the Sandiganbayan, said executive issuances are not per se illegal considering that every public official is entitled to presumption of good faith in the discharge of official duties. The Sandiganbayan further declared that in the absence of bad faith and malice, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties stands. 24

The Sandiganbayan also regarded the testimonial evidence presented by the Republic as insufficient to establish that respondents engaged in "schemes, devices or stratagems" to acquire ill-gotten assets. It observed that while witness Ma. Lourdes O. Magno attested that the excluded documentary evidence came from the records of the PCGG, she herself admitted lack of personal knowledge as to how these documents were obtained. Further, the Sandiganbayan emphasized that witnesses Evelita E. Celis and Atty. Orlando L. Salvador, who prepared the summaries of the PCGG documents and of the reports pertaining to PNCC's account, had no personal knowledge of the transactions or of the contents of the reports submitted to them. Finally, the Sandiganbayan assessed that witness Stephen P.Tanchuling simply testified that the supporting documents for the summary prepared by witness Evelita E. Celis were sourced from the Presidential Library in Malacañang.25

In disposal, the Sandiganbayan held:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Complaint for Reconveyance, Reversion, Accounting, Restitution and Damages is DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence. The writs of sequestration and freeze orders issued in this case are hereby LIFTED.

SO ORDERED.26

Consequently, the Republic moved for reconsideration while respondents moved to exchange the Republic's motion for reconsideration for lack of notice of hearing. Both motions were denied by the Sandiganbayan in its Joint Resolution and disposed, thus:

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration of the plaintiff, Republic of the Philippines, is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.27

Hence, recourse to the instant petition.

The Issue

The Republic relies on this sole ground for review:

THE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN DISMISSING PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT AGAINST RESPONDENTS DESPITE HAVING ESTABLISHED A PRIMA FACIE CASEIN ITS FAVOR.28

The Republic argues that Rodolfo M. Cuenca, in his answer dated July 3, 1989 and in his testimony, admitted that CDCP obtained loans from local and American Banks and government financial institutions. Thus, the Sandiganbayan should have only resolved whether or not said loans were grossly disadvantageous to the government and to the Filipino people.29

The Republic also assails the Sandiganbayan's exclusion of its documentary evidence on the ground of the best evidence rule. It argues that by its exhibits, it has proven that the documents showing the loans, financial assistance, guarantees and other favors bestowed upon Rodolfo M. Cuenca really existed and were actually executed and that the contents thereof were established by Rodolfo M. Cuenca's judicial admissions.30 In any case, the Republic argues that the content, extent and quantity of the Presidential issuances demonstrate obvious partiality to CDCP which are enough to arouse suspicion that said issuances were made to advance a furtive design.31

Respondents Rodolfo M. Cuenca, Roberto S. Cuenca and Manuel I. Tinio filed their comment32 to the petition reasoning that the Sandiganbayan did not err in excluding the documentary exhibits of the Republic for being mere photocopies as the contents thereof and not merely their existence, were at issue. This comment was adopted by respondent Imelda R. Marcos. 33 Respondent Don M. Ferry,34 on the other hand, insisted that the complaint as against him is dismissible as the acts imputed to him were made in his official capacity as one of the Vice Chairmen of the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) which bears the collective approval of DBP's Board of Governors and as such, his actions were presumed to be regular, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.35 Respondent Mario K. Alfelor, through counsel, prayed that the complaint be dismissed as to him in view of his death during the pendency of the petition.36

The Republic's consolidated reply37 to the comments were reiterative of the arguments contained in its petition.

The Ruling of the Court

We deny the petition.

No error could be attributed to the Sandiganbayan when it dismissed the Republic's complaint for insufficiency of evidence.

I

Appeal by certiorari is limited only to questions of law

Section 1, Rule 45 provides:

SECTION 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. - A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition may include an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or other provisional remedies and shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. x x x (Emphasis ours)