G.R. No. 187448 . January 9, 2017.
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Alfredo R. De Borja, Respondent.

FACTS

The Republic, through the PCGG, filed a complaint for recovery of ill-gotten wealth before the Sandiganbayan against several individuals, including Geronimo Velasco and his nephew, Alfredo De Borja. The Republic alleged that Velasco, as President of PNOC, diverted government funds by receiving bribes and commissions from charter agreements for oil tankers. A key allegation was that address commissions, which should have been remitted to PNOC, were instead funneled through a conduit corporation.
The Republic’s case against De Borja hinged on his purported role as Velasco’s agent or dummy. The primary evidence was the testimony of witness Epifanio Verano, who stated that on two occasions, Velasco instructed him to deliver sealed envelopes to De Borja’s office. Upon cross-examination, Verano admitted he did not personally hand the envelopes to De Borja, did not know if De Borja actually received them, and had no knowledge of their contents. The Republic also relied on an affidavit of Jose Reyes, who never testified in court due to his death.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly granted De Borja’s demurrer to evidence for insufficiency of the Republic’s proof.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s grant of the demurrer to evidence. A demurrer challenges the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s evidence. In ruling on it, the court evaluates the evidence presented and determines whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case. The Court emphasized that in civil cases, the burden of proof is by preponderance of evidence.
The Court found the Republic’s evidence against De Borja grossly insufficient. Verano’s testimony failed to establish De Borja’s receipt of the envelopes or his knowledge of their alleged illicit contents. His admissions on cross-examination rendered his testimony unreliable and speculative. Meanwhile, the affidavit of the deceased Jose Reyes was inadmissible as hearsay, as he was never presented for cross-examination. Without this affidavit, the only remaining evidence was Verano’s deficient testimony.
Consequently, the Republic failed to present competent and credible evidence to prove, even preliminarily, that De Borja acted as a dummy or received ill-gotten wealth. The Sandiganbayan did not err in finding that no preponderance of evidence existed to hold De Borja liable. The grant of the demurrer was a proper exercise of judicial discretion, as the plaintiff’s right to recover was not supported by the evidence on record.