5/5/25, 10:18 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 814

G.R. No. 187448. January 9, 2017.*

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.

ALFREDO R. DE BORJA, respondent.

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Dismissal of Actions;

Demurrer to Evidence; A demurrer to evidence is a motion to
dismiss on the ground of insufficiency of evidence.—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.
Same; Same; Appeals; The Supreme Court (SC) has
consistently deferred to the factual findings of the trial court,
in light of the unique opportunity afforded them to observe the
demeanor and spontaneity of the witness in assessing the
credibility of their testimony.—In this regard, the Court
emphasizes that factual questions are not the proper subject
of a petition for review under Rule 45, the same being limited
only to questions of law. Not being a trier of facts, the Court
is not duty­-bound to analyze and weigh again the evidence

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

11

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000196a0cf927fe24a866e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/21
5/5/25, 10:18 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 814

VOL. 814, JANUARY 9, 2017 11

Republic vs. De Borja

already considered in the proceedings below. For such

reasons, the Court has consistently deferred to the factual
findings of the trial court, in light of the unique opportunity
afforded them to observe the demeanor and spontaneity of
the witness in assessing the credibility of their testimony.
Same; Evidence; Burden of Proof; Words and Phrases;
Case law has defined “burden of proof” as the duty to
establish the truth of a given proposition or issue by such
quantum of evidence as the law demands in the case at which
the issue arises.—Case law has defined “burden of proof” as
the duty to establish the truth of a given proposition or issue
by such quantum of evidence as the law demands in the case
at which the issue arises. In civil cases, the burden of proof is
on the plaintiff to establish his case by preponderance of
evidence, i.e., superior weight of evidence on the issues
involved. “Preponderance of evidence” means evidence which
is of greater weight, or more convincing than that which is
offered in opposition to it.
Same; Civil Procedure; Dismissal of Actions; Demurrer to
Evidence; In a demurrer to evidence, 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.—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.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolutions of

the Sandiganbayan, First Division.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
The Solicitor General for petitioner.
https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000196a0cf927fe24a866e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/21
5/5/25, 10:18 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 814

Alfonso M. Cruz Law Offices for respondent.

12

12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. De Borja

CAGUIOA, J.:

Before this Court is an Appeal by Certiorari1 filed

under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (Petition), seeking
review of the Resolutions dated July 31, 20082 and
March 25, 20093 issued by the Sandiganbayan (SB),
First Division in Civil Case No. 0003.4 The Resolution
dated July 31, 2008 granted respondent Alfredo De
Borja’s (De Borja) Demurrer to Evidence dated April
15, 20055 (Demurrer to Evidence), while the Resolution
dated March 25, 2009 denied petitioner Republic of the
Philippines’ (Republic) Motion for Reconsideration
dated August 15, 20086 of the Resolution dated July 31,
2008.

The Factual Antecedents

The case stems from a Complaint7 filed by petitioner

Republic, represented by the Presidential Commission
on Good Government, for “Accounting, Reconveyance,
Forfeiture, Res-

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 11-32.

2 Id., at pp. 54-63. Penned by Presiding Justice Diosdado M.
Peralta (now a Member of this Court), with Associate Justices
Rodolfo A. Ponferrada and Efren N. De La Cruz, concurring.
3 Id., at pp. 49-52. Penned by Associate Justice Norberto Y.
Geraldez, with Associate Justices Efren N. De La Cruz and Rodolfo

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000196a0cf927fe24a866e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/21
5/5/25, 10:18 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 814

A. Ponferrada, concurring.
4 Entitled “Republic of the Philippines v. Geronimo Z. Velasco,
Ferdinand E. Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos, Alfredo R. De Borja,
Epifanio Verano, Gervel Inc., Telin Development Corporation,
Republic Glass Corporation, Nobel (Phils.) Inc., ACI Philippines, Inc.,
Private Investments Co. for Asia, Central Azucarera De Danao,
Malaganas Coal Mining Corporation, S.A. (Panama), Decision
Research Management (Hongkong), Atlantic Management Corp.
(USA).”
5 Rollo, pp. 484-508.
6 Id., at pp. 68-74.
7 Third Amended Complaint dated September 20, 1991 (id., at pp.
188-213). The Third Amended Complaint was admitted by the SB in
its Resolution promulgated on January 28, 1992 (id., at
pp. 214-219).

13

VOL. 814, JANUARY 9, 2017 13

Republic vs. De Borja

titution, and Damages” (Complaint) before the SB

(Civil Case No. 0003) for the recovery of ill­-gotten
assets allegedly amassed by the individual respondents
therein, singly or collectively, during the
administration of the late President Ferdinand E.
Marcos.8
Geronimo Z. Velasco (Velasco), one of the defendants
in Civil Case No. 0003, was the President and
Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Philippine
National Oil Company (PNOC).9 Herein respondent De
Borja is Velasco’s nephew.10
It appears from the records that PNOC, in the
exercise of its functions, 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
https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000196a0cf927fe24a866e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/21
5/5/25, 10:18 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 814

percent (5%) of the total freight.11 Allegedly, during the

tenure of Velasco, no address commissions were
remitted to PNOC.12
Instead, starting 1979, the percentage of the address
commission no longer appeared in the charter contracts
and the words “as agreed upon” were substituted
therefor, per instructions of Velasco.13 As a result, the
supposed address commissions were remitted to the
account of Decision Research Management Company
(DRMC), one of the defendant corporations in Civil
Case No. 0003 and the alleged conduit for address
commissions.14 Velasco was likewise alleged to have
diverted government funds by entering into several
transactions involving the purchase of crude oil
tankers and by reason of which he received bribes,
kickbacks, or commis-

_______________

8 Id., at p. 189.
9 Id., at p. 201.
10 Id., at p. 192.
11 Id., at p. 203.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id.

14

14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. De Borja

sions in exchange for the granting of permits, licenses,

and/or charters to oil tankers to service PNOC.15
Given the foregoing, petitioner Republic claimed
that it was De Borja who collected these address
commissions in behalf of Velasco, basing its allegation
on the testimony of Epifanio F. Verano16 (Verano), a
https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000196a0cf927fe24a866e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/21
5/5/25, 10:18 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 814

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.17
After the filing of the parties’ responsive pleadings,
trial on the merits ensued. Subsequently, upon the
conclusion of its presentation of evidence, petitioner
Republic submitted its Formal Offer of Evidence dated
March 6, 1995.18
On April 15, 2005, respondent De Borja filed his
Demurrer to Evidence of even date, stating therein,
among others: (i) 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;
(ii) that Verano admitted that the envelope was sealed;
(iii) that Verano did not open the envelope and
therefore had no knowledge of the contents thereof; (iv)
that Verano did not deliver the envelope personally to
De Borja; and (v) that Verano did not confirm whether
De Borja in fact received the said envelope.19

_______________

15 Id., at pp. 200-201.

16 Vice President of PNOC and allegedly acted as negotiator for
PNOC with respect to the chartered vessels (id., at p. 203). While
originally, Epifanio F. Verano was a defendant, in the SB’s
Resolution dated March 21, 1995, the PCGG granted him full
immunity from criminal prosecution in exchange for his testimony in
connection with Civil Case No. 0003 (id., at p. 379).
17 Id., at p. 203.
18 Id., at pp. 328-352.
19 Id., at pp. 487-488.

15

VOL. 814, JANUARY 9, 2017 15

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000196a0cf927fe24a866e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/21
5/5/25, 10:18 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 814

Republic vs. De Borja

In turn, petitioner Republic filed a Comment-
Opposition dated May 9, 2005,20 to which respondent
De Borja filed a Reply dated June 2, 2005.21

Ruling of the SB

In its Resolution dated July 31, 2008, the SB found

that the evidence presented was insufficient to support
a claim for damages against De Borja, thereby granting
respondent De Borja’s Demurrer to Evidence. In the
said Resolution, the SB ratiocinated:

After an assessment of the arguments raised by defendant

De Borja and the comments thereto of plaintiff, this Court
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.
Among the witnesses presented by plaintiff, the Court
focused on the testimony of the witness for plaintiff Epifanio
F. Verano, who was presented to prove that on two occasions,
defendant Velasco instructed Verano to deliver to defendant
De Borja envelopes containing money which constituted
commissions given by ship brokers.
Upon cross-examination, however, 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.
xxxx
Plaintiff also sought to prove defendant De Borja’s
participation in the alleged utilization of public funds by

_______________

20 Id., at pp. 509-525.

21 Id., at p. 22.

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000196a0cf927fe24a866e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/21
5/5/25, 10:18 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 814

16

16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. De Borja

the affidavit executed by Jose M. Reyes. However, the affiant

Jose M. Reyes never testified in open court, as he had a heart
attack two days before he was scheduled to take the witness
stand. x x x
x x x In this case, 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.22
(Emphasis supplied)

Petitioner Republic then filed its Motion for

Reconsideration dated August 15, 2008,23 which was
denied by the SB in the Resolution March 25, 2009.
Hence, petitioner Republic filed the instant Petition
solely with respect to the liability of respondent De
Borja, claiming that the SB erred in granting the
Demurrer to Evidence and in denying its Motion for
Reconsideration dated August 15, 2008.
In a Resolution dated July 15, 2009,24 the Court
required respondent De Borja to file a Comment. In
compliance with the Court’s directive, respondent De
Borja filed his Comment dated September 11, 2009,25
reiterating the insufficiency of the evidence adduced
before the SB (e.g., testimony of Verano, affidavit of
deceased Jose M. Reyes).
Petitioner Republic then filed its Reply dated June
10, 201026 in due course. A Motion for Early Resolution
dated June 7, 201127 was thereafter filed by respondent
De Borja, which was noted by the Court in its
Resolution dated August 10, 2011.28

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000196a0cf927fe24a866e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/21
5/5/25, 10:18 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 814

_______________

22 Id., at pp. 60-62.

23 Id., at pp. 68-74.
24 Id., at pp. 527-528.
25 Id., at pp. 545-583.
26 Id., at pp. 645-654.
27 Id., at pp. 659-662.
28 Id., at p. 665.

17

VOL. 814, JANUARY 9, 2017 17

Republic vs. De Borja

Parenthetically, on June 16, 2011, 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 this Court29 and
docketed as G.R. No. 199323, entitled “Republic of the
Philippines v. Geronimo Z. Velasco, et al.” On July 28,
2014, the Court rendered a Resolution, denying the
appeal. Thereafter, an Entry of Judgment was made
with respect to G.R. No. 199323. Subsequently, on
December 6, 2016, respondent De Borja filed a Motion
to Dismiss dated December 2, 2016,30 on the ground
that the Petition had been rendered moot and academic
by reason of the said Entry of Judgment, which
affirmed the June 16, 2011 Decision and November 15,
2011 Resolution of the SB that dismissed Civil Case
No. 0003.

Issue

The issue presented for the Court’s resolution is

whether or not the SB committed reversible error in
granting respondent De Borja’s Demurrer to Evidence.

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000196a0cf927fe24a866e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 9/21
5/5/25, 10:18 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 814

The Court’s Ruling

Before proceeding to the substantive issue in this

case, and for the guidance of the bench and bar, the
Court finds it proper to first discuss procedural
matters.
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.31 The question in a de-

_______________

29 First Division.
30 Rollo, pp. 667-678.
31 See Felipe v. MGM Motor Trading Corporation, G.R. No.
191849, September 23, 2015, 771 SCRA 360, 366.

18

18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. De Borja

murrer to evidence is whether the plaintiff, by his

evidence in chief, had been able to establish a prima
facie case.32
In Felipe v. MGM Motor Trading Corp.,33 wherein
the propriety of the trial court’s granting of a demurrer
to evidence was the crux of the controversy, we held
that a review of the dismissal of the complaint
naturally entailed a calibration of the evidence on
record to properly determine whether the material
allegations of the complaint were amply supported by
evidence. This being so, where the resolution of a
https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000196a0cf927fe24a866e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 10/21
5/5/25, 10:18 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 814

question requires an examination of the evidence, the

credibility of the witnesses, the existence and the
relevance of surrounding circumstances, and the
probability of specific situations, the same involves a
question of fact.34
In this regard, the Court emphasizes that factual
questions are not the proper subject of a petition for
review under Rule 45, the same being limited only to
questions of law.35 Not being a trier of facts, the Court
is not duty­-bound to analyze and weigh again the
evidence already considered in the proceedings below.36
For such reasons, the Court has consistently deferred
to the factual findings of the trial court, in light of the
unique opportunity afforded them to observe the
demeanor and spontaneity of the witness in assessing
the credibility of their testimony.37
Further, in his Comment dated September 11, 2009,
respondent De Borja points out the inadvertence of
petitioner Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor
General, to sub-

_______________

32 Condes v. Court of Appeals, 555 Phil. 311, 323; 528 SCRA 339,
351 (2007).
33 Supra note 31.
34 Zoleta v. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), G.R. No. 185224,
July 29, 2015, 764 SCRA 110, 121.
35 Section 1, Rule 45, Rules of Court.
36 Miro v. Mendoza Vda. de Erederos, 721 Phil. 772, 785; 710
SCRA 371, 384 (2013).
37 See People v. Gahi, 727 Phil. 642, 658; 717 SCRA 209, 227-228
(2014).

19

VOL. 814, JANUARY 9, 2017 19

Republic vs. De Borja
https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000196a0cf927fe24a866e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 11/21
5/5/25, 10:18 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 814

mit proof of service on the Sandiganbayan of a copy of

the instant Petition and the preceding Motion for
Extension of Time to File Petition for Review dated
April 29, 2009.38 In this regard, the failure of petitioner
Republic to strictly comply with Section 5(d), Rule 56 of
the Rules of Court already renders its Petition
dismissible.39
Nevertheless, considering that rules of procedure
are subservient to substantive rights, and in order to
finally write finis to this prolonged litigation, the Court
hereby dispenses with the foregoing lapses in the
broader interest of justice. The Court has repeatedly
favored the resolution of disputes on the merits, rather
than on procedural defects.
Further, anent the claim of respondent De Borja
that the Petition had already been rendered moot and
academic due to the dismissal of Civil Case No. 0003 by
the SB, the Court finds the same lacking in merit. It is
axiomatic that a dismissal on the basis of a demurrer
to evidence is similar to a judgment; it is a final order
ruling on the merits of a case.40 Hence, when petitioner
Republic brought the instant appeal before this Court,
the same was limited to respondent De Borja’s liability
alone. In this regard, the propriety of the SB’s granting
of respondent De Borja’s Demurrer to Evidence, which
is the subject matter of this case, is separate and
distinct from the subject matter of the appeal in G.R.
No. 199323, i.e., liability of Velasco, et al.

_______________

38 Rollo, pp. 547-548.

39 SEC. 5. Grounds for dismissal of appeal.—The appeal may
be dismissed motu proprio or on motion of the respondent on the
following grounds:
xxxx
(d) Failure to comply with the requirements regarding proof of
service and contents of and the documents which should accompany
the petition.

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000196a0cf927fe24a866e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 12/21
5/5/25, 10:18 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 814

40 Republic v. Gimenez, G.R. No. 174673, January 11, 2016, 778

SCRA 261, 271.

20

20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. De Borja

Thus, respondent De Borja’s claim in his Motion to

Dismiss that “the complaint against [him] was
dismissed not only once — but twice” is inaccurate and
legally flawed. Perforce, it is of no moment that the SB
dismissed Civil Case No. 0003 as the same was merely
with respect to the respondents other than respondent
De Borja who, by then, was already confronted with the
instant appeal brought by petitioner Republic.
The singular question for the Court now is this:
whether petitioner Republic was able to adduce
sufficient evidence to prove the alleged complicity of
respondent De Borja with the required quantum of
evidence.
After a judicious review of the records and the
submissions of the parties, the Court rules in the
negative.
Case law has defined “burden of proof” as the duty
to establish the truth of a given proposition or issue by
such quantum of evidence as the law demands in the
case at which the issue arises.41 In civil cases, the
burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish his case
by preponderance of evidence, i.e., superior weight of
evidence on the issues involved.42 “Preponderance of
evidence” means evidence which is of greater weight, or
more convincing than that which is offered in
opposition to it.43
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;
https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000196a0cf927fe24a866e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 13/21
5/5/25, 10:18 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 814

it is precisely the office of a demurrer to evidence to

expeditiously terminate the case without the need of
the defendant’s evidence.44 Hence, what is crucial is
the determination as to whether the plaintiff’s evidence
entitles it to the relief sought.
Specifically, the inquiry in this case is confined to
resolving whether petitioner Republic is entitled to
“Accounting, Recon-

_______________

41 Far East Bank & Trust Company v. Chante, 719 Phil. 221, 233;
707 SCRA 149, 162 (2013).
42 Section 1, Rule 133, Rules of Court.
43 Supra note 32.
44 Id., at pp. 323-324; p. 352.

21

VOL. 814, JANUARY 9, 2017 21

Republic vs. De Borja

veyance, Forfeiture, Restitution, and Damages” based

on the evidence it has presented.
As repeatedly stressed by respondent De Borja, the
only evidence presented with respect to his liability is
the testimony of Verano and the affidavit of one Jose
M. Reyes, as summarized below:
(i) Affidavit of Jose M. Reyes
With respect to the affidavit of Jose M. Reyes, his
nonappearance before the SB due to his untimely
demise rendered the same inadmissible in evidence for
being hearsay, as correctly observed by the SB.45
(ii) Testimony of Verano
Verano was presented to prove that on two (2)
occasions, Velasco had instructed him to deliver to De

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000196a0cf927fe24a866e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 14/21
5/5/25, 10:18 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 814

Borja envelopes allegedly containing the “address

commissions.”46

SOL URETA
Q: Could you tell us about, if you know, any particular
instance any payment by address commission to PNOC?
A: I begly (sic) recall. A broker coming to the house handing
me a brown envelope for delivery to the Minister.
Q: Who is the Minister?
A: Minister Velasco.
xxxx
Q: Do you know the contents of that envelope, Mr.
witness?
A: It was sealed. Since it is for somebody else I did not
open it.
Q: What did he say at that time he handed to you that
envelope?

_______________

45 See Rollo, p. 61.

46 Id., at p. 60.

22

22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. De Borja

A: He said that is from “X-C.”

xxxx
Q: Would you tell us what was your understanding as to the
contents of that particular envelope?
ATTY. MENDOZA
Objection, your Honor please, it calls for an opinion.
PJ GA[R]CHITORENA
Lay the basis . . .
SOL URETA

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000196a0cf927fe24a866e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 15/21
5/5/25, 10:18 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 814

Q: Mr. Witness, according to you the envelope was given to

you and for what purpose again?
ATTY. MENDOZA
Already answered. He said it was to be delivered.
PJ GA[R]CHITORENA
Q: And he did not know the contents because it was a
sealed envelope.
SOL URETA
Q: Were there any indication from Mr. Heger at that
time as to what that particular envelope contained?
A: No, he did not say so.
Q: But then could you tell us what was your impression. . .
PJ GA[R]CHITORENA
Impression as to what?
SOL URETA
As to the nature of delivery.
ATTY. MENDOZA
Objection, that calls for an opinion.
xxxx

23

VOL. 814, JANUARY 9, 2017 23

Republic vs. De Borja

PJ GA[R]CHITORENA

It could contain shirt, it could contain pieces of

paper, it could contain clippings. You must show
that you have basis for that question. But in fact he
said, he do (sic) not know. He did (sic) know what
contents was (sic). Any question along that line will
be a guess. He is not expert at feelings (sic) things in
coming out with a result. . . We know which was you want (
sic) to go and for that very reason Mr. Mendoza is objecting
because you give us the false.

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000196a0cf927fe24a866e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 16/21
5/5/25, 10:18 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 814

Q: What did you do with that envelope for heaven’s sake?

A: I brought it to him. What will I do with it it’s not mine. I
was told to give it to the Minister.
SOL URETA
Q: What happened when you weren’t (sic) to the Minister?
A: To bring it to the office of Mr. De Borja.
xxxx
Q: What did Mr. Velasco say with respect to that envelope.
A: He told me to bring it to Mr. De Borja.
Q: Who is Mr. De Borja?
A: At that time he was connected with Gerver.
Q: What happened when you brought it to the office of
Mr. De Borja?
A: I brought it to the office of Mr. De Borja and he
wasn’t there, so I just left it.
xxxx
SOL URETA
Q: Were there other occasions when envelope (sic) was given
to you by a broker?
A: I recall once in early 80’s.
Q: Who was the particular broker that brought to you the
envelope?

24

24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. De Borja

A: Mr. David Reynolds.

Q: Will you tell us the circumstance of that delivery?
A: Well, he just came to the office I thought he was going
there for a cup of coffee and then he said give this to Mr.
Velasco, that’s it.
Q: Did you know where that envelope that (sic) particular
time?
A: I brought it over to Makati because I was holding office
along Roxas Blvd.
https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000196a0cf927fe24a866e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 17/21
5/5/25, 10:18 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 814

Q: To whom did you bring that envelope?

A: To the office of Mr. Velasco.
Q: What happened afterwards when you brought the
envelope to Mr. Velasco?
A: Again he told me to bring it over to Gerver.
Q: Did you bring it to Gerver?
A: I left it there.
PJ GA[R]CHITORENA
Q: To whom did you left (sic) it?
A: Supposed to be for Mr. De Borja, but Mr. De Borja
was not around.
xxxx
Q: The first one, when was it more or less, when somebody
called, Mr. Heger?
A: Late ‘70’s, your Honor. [T.S.N. pp. 114-123, March 1995-
Verano on Direct]47 (Additional emphasis supplied)

Moreover, during Verano’s cross-examination, it was

revealed that he was not knowledgeable of the contents
of the envelopes and that he also never confirmed
whether respondent De Borja had actually received
them:

Q: Referring to this envelope which you mentioned in your

direct testimony, both the envelopes delivered

_______________

47 Id., at pp. 555-561.

25

VOL. 814, JANUARY 9, 2017 25

Republic vs. De Borja

by Mr. Heger to you and Mr. Reynolds. They were sealed?

A: Right.
https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000196a0cf927fe24a866e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 18/21
5/5/25, 10:18 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 814

Q: You did not open them?

A: No, sir.
Q: When you brought to the Office of Mr. Velasco they
remained sealed?
A: They remained sealed.
Q: And when you brought them to the Office of Mr. De
Borja. . .
A: They remained sealed [t.s.n., p. 162 March 1995-Verano
on Cross].
PJ GA[R]CHITORENA
Q: Regarding these two envelopes, you said that you
delivered these envelopes in the Office of Mr. De Borja?
A: Yes, your Honor.
Q: But De Borja was not around at that time?
A: That is right.
PJ GA[R]CHITORENA
Q: After delivery did you receive any word that the
envelopes did not reach Mr. De Borja?
WITNESS
A: I did not receive any report.
Q: From anybody?
A: From anybody.
Q: Did you meet Mr. De Borja anytime before the delivery?
A: No, sir.
Q: Subsequently did you meet Mr. De Borja?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you bring the matter of the envelope?
A: No, sir.

26

26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. De Borja

Q: Did he bring the matter with you?

A: No, sir. [t.s.n., pp. 21-22, 2 March 1995-Verano, Questions
from the Court].48
https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000196a0cf927fe24a866e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 19/21
5/5/25, 10:18 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 814

In the face of the foregoing testimony, 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 joins and concurs in the SB’s observations
pertaining to Verano’s want of knowledge with respect
to the contents of the envelopes allegedly delivered to
respondent De Borja’s office, which remained sealed
the entire time it was in Verano’s possession. 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.49
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.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is
DENIED and the Resolutions dated July 31, 2008 and
March 25, 2009 of the Sandiganbayan, First Division
in Civil Case No. 0003 are hereby AFFIRMED.

_______________

48 Id., at pp. 573-574.

49 Id., at pp. 577-578.

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000196a0cf927fe24a866e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 20/21
5/5/25, 10:18 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 814

27

VOL. 814, JANUARY 9, 2017 27

Republic vs. De Borja
SO ORDERED.

Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro,

Del Castillo and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, resolutions affirmed.

A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss on the

ground of insufficiency of evidence and is filed after the
plaintiff rests his case. (Claudio vs. Saraza, 768 SCRA
356 [2015])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2025 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000196a0cf927fe24a866e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 21/21