REPUBLIC vs. DE BORJA

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ALFREDO R. DE BORJA
G.R. No.  187448
January 9, 2017

FACTS:

The case started in a complaint filed before Sanguniangbayan (SB) by the petitioner thru Presidential Commission on Good Government for the recovery of ill-gotten assets allegedly amassed by the individual respondents therein, during the administration of the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos. Geronimo Z. Velasco, was the President and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC) in which respondent De Borja is Velasco' s nephew.

 It appears from the records that PNOC would regularly enter into charter agreements with vessels and, pursuant to industry practice, vessel owners would pay "address commissions" to PNOC as charterer, amounting to five percent (5%) of the total freight wherein during the tenure of Velasco, allegedly, no address commissions were remitted to PNOC.

Given the foregoing, petitioner Republic claimed that it was De Borja who collected these address commissions on behalf of Velasco, basing its allegation on the testimony of Epifanio F. Veranoa witness for petitioner Republic. De Borja was further alleged to have acted as Velasco's dummy, nominee, and/or agent for corporations he owned and/or controlled, such as DRMC.

Respondent De Borja filed his Demurrer to Evidence of even date, stating therein, among others:

1. that Verano, on two (2) occasions, testified that he delivered an envelope to Velasco who, in turn, instructed him to deliver the same to De Borja;
2. that Verano admitted that the envelope was sealed;
3. that Verano did not open the envelope and therefore had no knowledge of the contents thereof;
4. that Verano did not deliver the envelope personally to De Borja; and that Verano did not confirm whether De Borja in fact received the said envelope.

SB finds that the plaintiff has failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that defendant De Borja is liable for damages as averred in the complaint. witness Verano admitted that although he was instructed to deliver two envelopes to the office of De Borja, he did not know for a fact that De Borja actually received them. Moreover, witness Verano testified that after he delivered the envelopes, he did not receive any word that they did reach De Borja, nor did Verano confirm De Borja's receipt of them. Where the plaintiff's evidence against defendant De Borja consists only of Verano's testimony and Reyes' affidavit, no preponderance of evidence has been satisfactorily established. The SB rendered a Decision dismissing Civil Case No. 0003 with respect to the remaining respondents therein. This, in turn, was subject of an appeal before Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

WON the SB committed irreversible error in granting respondent De Borja's Demurrer to Evidence.

HELD:

A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. It is a remedy available to the defendant, to the effect that the evidence produced by the plaintiff is insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain an issue. The question in a demurrer to evidence is whether the plaintiff, by his evidence in chief, had been able to establish a prima facie case.

In a demurrer to evidence, however, it is premature to speak of "preponderance of evidence" because it is filed prior to the defendant's presentation of evidence; it is precisely the office of a demurrer to evidence to expeditiously terminate the case without the need of the defendant's evidence. Hence, what is crucial is the determination as to whether the plaintiff's evidence entitles it to the relief sought. 

The insinuations of petitioner Republic in the instant Petition can best be described as speculative, conjectural, and inconclusive at best. Nothing in the testimony of Verano reasonably points, or even alludes, to the conclusion that De Borja acted as a dummy or conduit of Velasco in receiving address commissions from vessel owners. 

The Court concurs in the SB's observations. As admitted by Verano himself, he did not and could not have known what was inside the envelopes when they were purportedly entrusted to him for delivery. In the same vein, Verano did not even confirm respondent De Borja's receipt of the envelopes, despite numerous opportunities to do so. Relatedly, it was further revealed during the cross-examination of Verano that in the first place, Velasco did not even deal directly with brokers.

All told, the Court finds that the evidence adduced is wholly insufficient to support the allegations of the Complaint before the SB. Thus, for failure of petitioner Republic to show any right to the relief sought, the Court affirms the SB in granting the Demurrer to Evidence.