FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 188881, April 21, 2014
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN, BIENVENIDO R. TANTOCO, JR., DOMINADOR R. SANTIAGO, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, IMELDA MARCOS, BIENVENIDO R. TANTOCO, SR., GLICERIA R. TANTOCO, AND MARIA LOURDES TANTOCO–PINEDA, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
SERENO, C.J.:
The Court finally finds that, contrary to the petitioner’s theory, there is good cause for the production and inspection of the documents subject of the motion dated August 3, 1989. Some of the documents are, according to the verification of the amended complaint, the basis of several of the material allegations of said complaint. Others, admittedly, are to be used in evidence by the plaintiff. It is matters such as these into which inquiry is precisely allowed by the rules of discovery, to the end that the parties may adequately prepare for pre–trial and trial. xxx.
x x x x
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, without pronouncement as to costs. The temporary restraining order issued on October 27, 1989 is hereby LIFTED AND SET ASIDE. SO ORDERED.4
Exh. MMM Memorandum for Hon. Teodoro Pena, signed by Juan C. Tuvera Xerox NNN Undated handwritten letter purportedly written by Glecy R. Tantoco No remarks whether original or photocopy OOO Letter to Ferdinand E. Marcos from Bienvenido Tantoco with handwritten marginal note dated 8 May 1982 No remarks whether original or photocopy PPP Undated letter to “Mam” from “Glecy” Xerox QQQ(missing)
(missing) RRR Proclamation No. 50 dated Dec. 15, 1986, signed by Pres. Corazon Aquino From APT RRR Complaint filed by RP thru Asset Privatization Trust (APT) against Rustan Investment & Management Corporation Xerox SSS Administrative Order No. 14 dated Feb. 3, 1987 signed by Pres. Corazon Aquino From APT SSS Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim filed by Rustan Investment & Management Corporation Xerox TTT Contract dated Feb. 27, 1987 by and between RP and DEBP No remarks whether original or photocopy TTT Order– Civil Case No. 89–5268, RP v. Rustan Investment From APT UUU Order– Civil Case No. 89–5268, RP v. Rustan Investment From APT VVV (missing) (missing) WWW Eastern Inspection Bureau for Phil. Eagle Mines, Inc. dated Oct. 18, 1989 From APT XXX Letter dated Dec. 20, 1990 for Asset Privatization Trust from Dominador R. SantiagoXerox
YYY– YYY–22 Articles of Incorporation of Rustan Investment &Management Corp. dated Feb. 21, 1966 Xerox YYY–23–YYY–33Certificate of Filing of Amended Articles of Incorporation dated Nov. 20, 1981
Xerox ZZZ NBI Questioned Documents Report No. 729–1101 dated Jan. 21, 2002 Original AAAA–1 Undated, handwritten note signed by Ferdinand Marcos Malacañang Lib AAAA–2 Memo for the Pres. Dated 23 Jul 79 with handwritten markings Malacañang Lib AAAA–3 Handwritten note Office of the President stationery paper (undated) Malacañang Lib AAAA–4 Handwritten note Office of the President stationery paper (undated) Malacañang Lib AAAA–5 Handwritten note Office of the President stationery paper (undated) Malacañang Lib AAAA–6 Handwritten note Office of the President stationery paper (undated) Malacañang Lib AAAA–7 Handwritten note Office of the President stationery paper (undated) Malacañang Lib AAAA–8–11 Handwritten note dated Dec. 28, 1978 Office of the President stationery paper Malacañang Lib AAAA–12–17 Handwritten note Office of the President stationery paper Malacañang Lib AAAA–18 Handwritten note dated Jan. 7, 1978 Office of the President stationery paper Malacañang Lib AAAA–19–25 Handwritten note Office of the President stationery paper (undated) Malacañang Lib AAAA–27–29 Handwritten note Office of the President stationery paper (undated) Malacañang Lib AAAA–30–34 Handwritten note Office of the President stationery paper (undated) Malacañang Lib AAAA–35–41 Handwritten note Office of the President stationery paper (undated) Malacañang Lib BBBB–1a–1b Microfilm of “Questioned” documents No remarks whether original or photocopy BBBB–2–7 Microfilm of “Questioned” documents No remarks whether original or photocopy BBBB–8–12 Microfilm of “Questioned” documents No remarks whether original or photocopy BBBB–13–20 Microfilm of “Questioned” documents No remarks whether original or photocopy BBBB–21–28 Microfilm of “Questioned” documents No remarks whether original or photocopy BBBB–29–33 Microfilm of “Questioned” documents No remarks whether original or photocopy CCCC–1–11 Executive Summary of Phil. Eagle Mines, Inc. Xerox DDDD–1–28 SEC Records of Phil. Eagle Mines, Inc. Xerox EEEE–1–13 TSN – Evelyn Singson Xerox FFFF–1–13 Affidavit of Evelyn R. Singson dated Aug. 18, 1986 Xerox GGGG–1–6 SBTC (Security Bank and Trust Company) bank documents/ credit ticket/ certificate of deposit/telegraphic transfer/ telex/ money transfer PCGG Lib HHHH–1–9 SBTC debit tickets/ transmittal documents/ telexes PCGG Lib IIII–1–5 SBTC debit tickets/ telexes/ wire transfers PCGG Lib JJJJ–1–7 SBTC debit tickets/ wire transfers/ telexes/ transmittal letters PCGG Lib KKKK–1–4 SBTC debit tickets/ transmittal documents/ Irving Trust documents PCGG Lib LLLL–1–4 SBTC debit tickets/ transmittal documents/ Irving Trust documents PCGG Lib MMMM–1–3 SBTC debit tickets/ transmittal documents/ Irving Trust documents PCGG Lib NNNN–1–3 SBTC debit tickets/ transmittal documents/ Irving Trust documents PCGG Lib OOOO–1–6 SBTC debit tickets/ transmittal documents/ Irving Trust documents PCGG Lib PPPP–1–2 SBTC money transfers/ telex PCGG Lib QQQQ–1–2 SBTC money transfers/ telex PCGG Lib RRRR–1–2 SBTC debit tickets/ money transfers/ telex PCGG Lib SSSS– SSSS–2 SBTC debit tickets/ money transfer/ Irving Trust documents PCGG Lib TTTT–1–4 SBTC debit tickets/ money transfer/ telex/ Irving Trust documents PCGG Lib UUUU–1–4 SBTC debit tickets/ money transfer/ telex/ Irving Trust documents PCGG Lib VVVV–1–5 SBTC debit tickets/ money transfer/ telegraphic transfer/ Irving Trust documents PCGG Lib WWWW–1–3 SBTC debit tickets/ telex/ Irving Trust documents PCGG Lib XXXX–1–5 SBTC debit tickets/ money transfer/ telegraphic transfer/ Irving Trust documents PCGG Lib YYYY–1–3 SBTC debit tickets/ money transfer/ Irving Trust documents PCGG Lib ZZZZ to ZZZZ–1 SBTC debit tickets/ telegraphic transfer PCGG Lib AAAAA–1–3 SBTC debit tickets/ telex/ telegraphic transfer PCGG Lib BBBBB–1–16 SBTC credit ticket/ debit ticket/ money transfer/ telegraphic transfer, etc. PCGG Lib CCCCC–1–10 SBTC credit ticket/ debit ticket/ money transfer/ telegraphic transfer, etc. PCGG Lib DDDDD–DDDDD–1 SBTC debit tickets/ telegraphic transfer PCGG Lib EEEEE–1–6 SBTC credit ticket/ debit ticket/ telex PCGG Lib FFFFF–1–5 SBTC document/ credit ticket/ debit ticket/ telex PCGG Lib HHHHH–1–7 SBTC certificate of deposit/ debit & credit ticket/ money transfer/ telex PCGG Lib IIIII–1–6 SBTC debit & credit tickets/ money & wire transfers PCGG Lib JJJJJ–1–3 SBTC debit & credit tickets/ telex PCGG Lib KKKKK–1–4 SBTC credit ticket/ money transfer/ telex PCGG Lib LLLLL–1–4 SBTC Certificate of Deposit/ debit & credit tickets/ telex PCGG Lib MMMMM–1–11 SBTC debit & credit tickets/ certificate of deposits/ telex PCGG Lib NNNNN–1–5 SBTC debit & credit tickets/ telex PCGG Lib OOOOO–1–6 SBTC Certificate of Deposit/ debit & credit tickets/ telex PCGG Lib PPPPP–1–2 SBTC credit ticket/ debit advise/ telegraphic transfer PCGG Lib QQQQQ–1–5SBTC Certificate of Deposit/ debit & credit tickets/ telex
PCGG Lib RRRRR–1–10 SBTC Certificate of Deposit/ debit & credit tickets/ telex PCGG Lib SSSSS–1–5 SBTC Certificate of Deposit/ debit & credit tickets/ telex/ debit advise PCGG Lib TTTTT–1–28 Affidavit of Apolinario K. Medina dated July 23, 1987 Xerox UUUUU–1–21 Affidavit of Dominador Pangilinan dated July 24, 1987 Xerox VVVVV Memo for Comm Ruben Carranza, Jr. from Dir. Danilo R.V. Daniel dated June 6, 2003 Xerox WWWWW–1 Letter dated Dec. 8, 1982 to Gallery Bleue from Richard Lynch (Hammer Galleries), unsigned Xerox XXXXX to 1 Invoice dated Dec. 8, 1982 for Gallery Bleue total $545,000.00 Xerox YYYYY–1–2 Invoice dated Dec. 8, 1982 for Gallery Bleue total $545,000.00 signed by Mrs. Tantoco Xerox ZZZZZ Letter dated Dec. 8, 1982 to Gallery Bleue Xerox AAAAAA–1–3 Fe R. Gimenez– Bankers’ Trust Check #485 dated Dec. 8, 1982 pay to Hammer Galleries Xerox BBBBBB–1–2 Memo for Comm Ruben Carranza, Jr. from Dir. Danilo Xerox CCCCCC–1–2 Knoedler–Modarco S.A. – New York for Gallery Bleue dated July 20, 1983 Xerox DDDDDD–1–5 Citibank, N.A. debit advice for $810,005.00 Xerox EEEEEE–1–4 Citibank, N.A. cashier’s check #38865 dated Nov. 22, 1983 for $810,000.00 Xerox FFFFFF–1–3 Letter dated Nov. 22,1983 to Mrs. Tantoco from Peter Sansone of Knoedler–Modarco Xerox GGGGGG–1–26 Declaration of Oscar M. Carino dated June 23, 1987 Original HHHHHH–1–2 Agreement between Leslie R. Samuels and Gliceria R. Tantoco Xerox IIIIII to 1 Bankers’ Trust Company Check #02002598 dated Sept. 3, 1981 for $1,000,000.00 Xerox JJJJJJ to 1 Letter dated Sept. 4, 1981 from Alan Forster of Sotheby’s Xerox KKKKKK–1–3 Bankers’ Trust Check #02002282 dated Sept. 18, 1981 for $4,950,000.00 Xerox LLLLLL–1–2 Hammer Galleries’ Invoice dated Dec. 9, 1982 for Gallery Bleue total $323,000.00 Xerox MMMMMM–1–3 Bankers’ Trust Check #200 for Hammer Galleries dated Dec. 20, 1982 for $323,000.00 issued by Fe Gimenez Xerox NNNNNN–1–2 Hammer Galleries’ Commercial Invoice dated Dec. 27, 1982 for Gallery Bleue Xerox OOOOOO–1 Bankers Trust Statement of Account Xerox PPPPPP–1–4 Credit Suisse/ Trinidad Foundation/ Debit Advice/ $480,015.79 Xerox QQQQQQ–1–4 Credit Suisse/ Palmy Foundation/ Debit Advice/$700,006 Xerox RRRRRR–1–3 Credit Suisse/ Palmy Foundation/ Debit Advice/$2,000,005.62 Xerox SSSSSS Certificate of the Swiss Authority executing request for documents/ Peter Cossandy Xerox SSSSSS–1 Certificate of Authenticity of Business Records/ Martin Grossman Xerox SSSSSS–2 List of documents numbered by the Examining Magistrate/ Peter Cossandy Xerox TTTTTT–1–10 Letter dated Feb. 3, 1984 for Mrs. Gliceria Tantoco Re: Glockhurst Corp. Xerox UUUUUU–1 Debit Advice for Php3,241,393.00 Xerox VVVVVV–1–3 Traders’ Royal Bank Manager’s Check #00671 dated July 28,1981 for Php3, 241,393.00 Xerox WWWWWW–1 Traders’ Royal Bank Debit Advise for Php4,283,440.29 Xerox XXXXXX–1–3 TRB Manager’s Check #001282 for Php3,200,000.00 Xerox YYYYYY–1–3 Letter from Rico Tantoco dated 5/6/82 to Fe Xerox ZZZZZZ–1–4 Status of Holdings in Phil. Eagle Mines, Inc. (PEMI) grand total of Php2,640,351.90 Xerox AAAAAAA–1–105 Affidavit of Rolando Gapud dated Aug. 1, 1987 with annexes PCGG Lib
After a thorough review of the circumstances, this Court is convinced that it is fair and just to grant defendants’ Motion under Rule 29 of the Rules of Court filed on October 1, 1996 and to sanction the plaintiff for its deliberate refusal and failure to comply with the directive of this Court which was confirmed no less (sic) by the Supreme Court. The plaintiff must be prevented from offering in evidence all the documents that were not produced and exhibited at the time the plaintiff was under a directive to do so, i.e. Exhibits “MMM” to “AAAAAAA” xxx. In arriving at this conclusion, the Court is not unmindful of the fact that the exhibits involved have not passed the test of admissibility in any event.15
x x x. The identification of the document before it is marked as an exhibit does not constitute the formal offer of the document as evidence for the party presenting it. Objection to the identification and marking of the document is not equivalent to objection to the document when it is formally offered in evidence. What really matters is the objection to the document at the time it is formally offered as an exhibit.
x x x x
It would have been so simple for the defense to reiterate its former objection, this time seasonably, when the formal offer of exhibits was made. It is curious that it did not, especially so since the objections to the formal offer of exhibits was made in writing. In fact, the defense filed no objection at all not only to the photocopies but to all the other exhibits of the prosecution.18 (Emphases supplied)
a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole; and
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office.22
The fact that the documents were certified as true copies of the original by the PCGG does not enhance its admissibility. These documents have remained private even if it is in the custody of the PCGG. What became public are not the private documents (themselves) but the recording of it in the PCGG. For, “while public records kept in the Philippines, of private writings are also public documents...the public writing is not the writing itself but the public record thereof. Stated otherwise, if a private writing itself is inserted officially into a public record, its record, its recordation, or its incorporation into the public record becomes a public document, but that does not make the private writing itself a public document so as to make it admissible without authentication.”25 (Citation omitted, emphasis supplied.)
Thereafter, it did not take long in the process of the presentation of plaintiff’s evidence before it became apparent that plaintiff’s exhibits consist mostly of documents which have not been exhibited during the discovery proceedings despite the directive of this Court as confirmed by the Supreme Court. Plaintiff’s failure to offer a plausible explanation for its concealment of the main bulk of its exhibits even when it was under a directive to produce them and even as the defendants were consistently objecting to the presentation of the concealed documents gives rise to a reasonable [inference] that the plaintiff, at the very outset, had no intention whatsoever of complying with the directive of this Court.26
The message is plain. It is the duty of each contending party to lay before the court the facts in issue–fully and fairly; i.e., to present to the court all the material and relevant facts known to him, suppressing or concealing nothing, nor preventing another party, by clever and adroit manipulation of the technical rules of pleading and evidence, from also presenting all the facts within his knowledge.
x x x x
The truth is that “evidentiary matters” may be inquired into and learned by the parties before the trial. Indeed, it is the purpose and policy of the law that the parties — before the trial if not indeed even before the pre–trial — should discover or inform themselves of all the facts relevant to the action, not only those known to them individually, but also those known to adversaries; in other words, the desideratum is that civil trials should not be carried on in the dark; and the Rules of Court make this ideal possible through the deposition–discovery mechanism set forth in Rules 24 to 29. xxx.
x x x x
x x x. (I)t is the precise purpose of discovery to ensure mutual knowledge of all the relevant facts on the part of all parties even before trial, this being deemed essential to proper litigation. This is why either party may compel the other to disgorge whatever facts he has in his possession; and the stage at which disclosure of evidence is made is advanced from the time of trial to the period preceding it.27 (Emphasis supplied)
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 25–27; Penned by Associate Justice Edilberto G. Sandoval and concurred in by Associate Justices Teresita V. Diaz–Baldos and Samuel R. Martires.
2 Filed on 13 March 2007.
3 Docketed as Civil Case No. 0008.
4Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 90478, 21 November 1991, 204 SCRA 212, 232– 234.
5Rollo, p. 159.
6 Id. at 160.
7 Id.
8 Sandiganbayan Resolution dated 17 February 1997; id. at 158–165.
9 Sandiganbayan Resolution dated 29 May 2002; id. at 179–180.
10 Attached as Annex “G” to the Petition; id. at 74–113.
11 Exhibits “EEE” to “EEEE–15,” “O,” “S,” “XX,” “DDD,” “RRR,” “SSS,” “TTT,” “UUU,” “DDDD–1” to “DDDD–28,” “TTTT,” to “TTTT–3,” “UUUUU” to “UUUUU–3,” “AAAAAAA” to “AAAAAAA–9,” “G,” “II,” “QQQ,” “VVV,” “AAAA,” “AAAA–26,” “III–1,” “KKK–1,” and “LLL.”
12Rollo, pp. 213–215.
13 Id. at 56–58.
14 Id. at 45–54.
15 Id. at 24–27; Sandiganbayan Resolution dated 3 June 2009.
16 Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 456 Phil. 755 (2003).
17 264 Phil. 753 (1990).
18 Id. at 759–760.
19Rollo, p. 164.
20 Id. at 29.
21 Id. at 58.
22 Rules of Court, Rule 130, Sec. 3.
23 Department of Education, Culture and Sports v. Del Rosario, 490 Phil. 194, 204 (2005).
24Northwest Airlines v. Cruz and Court of Appeals, 376 Phil. 96 (1999).
25Rollo, p. 30.
26 Id. at 25–26.
27 Supra note 4 at 222–228.
BERSAMIN, J.:
1) The “official records and other evidence” on the basis of which the verification of the amended complaint asserted that its allegations were “true and correct;”
2) The documents listed in PCGG’s Pre–Trial Brief as “intended to be presented and ** marked as exhibits for the plaintiff;” and
3) “[T]he minutes of the meeting of the PCGG which chronicles the discussion (if any) and the decision (of the Chairman and members) to file the complaint [in this case].”
EXHIBIT NO. | DESCRIPTION | PURPOSE |
MMM | Memorandum dated May 10, 1982 for Hon. Teodoro Pena, Minister of Natural Resources issued by Presidential Assistant, Juan C. Tuvera, informing him that the President had approved the request of Rustan Investment and Management Corp. for the extension of its shipment of 9,000 cu.m logs until the loading is completed | To show that the Tantocos and/or their corporations were extended undue and unwarranted influence, advantages and concessions by Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos; To show that the Tantocos were close associates of the Marcoses |
NNN | Undated handwritten letter of Glecy R. Tantoco to “FE” pertaining to the request as mentioned in Exhibit “MMM” | |
OOO | Letter dated April 29, 1982 addressed to Pres. Ferdinand E. Marcos from Bienvenido R. Tantoco, Jr. as President of Rustan Investment & Management Corp. pertaining to the request for extension as stated in Exhibit “MMM” | |
PPP | Undated handwritten letter of Glecy R. Tantoco to “MAM” | |
RRR | Complaint in Civil Case No. 89–5268 for Recovery of Deficiency filed by the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, thru its trustee, Asset Privatization Trust (APT) against Rustan Investment & Management Corp., in relation to its joint and solidary obligation with the Philippine Eagle Mines foreign currency loans obtained from DBP | To show that a complaint had been filed by the government against Rustan Investment and Management Corporation, a Tantoco corporation, for the huge loans obtained from the DBP; To show that the Tantocos and/or their corporation, because of their close association with Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos, were extended undue and unwarranted advantages and concessions, and obtained huge loans |
SSS (two documents were marked as Exhibit SSS) | Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim Civil Case No. 89–5268 – RP thru Asset Privatization Trust v. Rustan Investment & Management Corp. | To show that Rustan Investment and Management Corporation filed an answer to the complaint filed against it for recovery of deficiency by reason of its joint and solidary obligation with Philippine Eagle Mines, another Tantoco–controlled corporation |
Administrative Order No. 14 approving the identification and transfer to the National Government of certain assets and liabilities of DBP and PNB, promulgated by Pres. Corazon C. Aquino on Feb. 3, 1987 (The Sandiganbayan took judicial notice of AO 14 during the September 11, 2001 hearing.) | To show that an Administrative Order was issued by President Aquino approving the identification and transfer of certain assets, liabilities, deposits and receivables to the National Government from DBP to PNB | |
SSS–1 | List of Assets for Transfer from DBP and PNB as of June 30, 1986 | |
SSS–2 | Summary of Assets for transfer from PNB as of June 30, 1986 | |
SSS–3 | Schedule of Assets for transfer, deposits with and due from banks from PNB as of June 30, 1986 | |
SSS–4 | Schedule of Assets for transfer, bank premises, furniture and equipment from PNB as of June 30, 1986 | |
SSS–5 to 7 | Schedule of Assets for transfer–loans and loan related accounts, as of June 30, 1986 | |
SSS–8 to 10 | DBP non–performing accounts for transfer as of June 30, 1986 | |
TTT | Contract between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and DBP regarding the transfer of the latter’s assets and liabilities to the National Government, in accordance with Proclamation No. 50, December 8, 1986, as amended (The Sandiganbayan took judicial notice of the Deed of Transder during the September 11, 2001 hearing.) | To show that the DBP, by virtue and in consideration of the National Government’s assumption of its certain liabilities, transferred its assets, involving receivables to the government |
UUU | Order dated June 4, 1996 of the RTC of Makati City, Branch 62, in Civil Case No. 89–5268, declaring Philippine Eagle Mining Corporation in default for failure to answer within 60 days from the last publication | To show that the Philippine Eagle Mining Corporation was declared in default for failure to file answer to the complaint |
WWW | Combined Credit and Property Checkings dated 18 October 1989 conducted by Eastern Inspection Bureau on Phil. Eagle Mines, Inc. | To show that an inspection and investigation was conducted against PEMI showing that the company was controlled by Tantocos |
XXX | Letter of Dominado(r) R. Santiago to Asset Privatization Trust dated 20 Dec. 1990 offering to pay P5M to APT in exchange for the dropping of the case against RIMCO | To show that Rustan Investment and Management Corp. (RIMCO) offered P5M to APT in exchange for the dropping of the case against RIMCO |
YYY to YYY–22 | Articles of Incorporation of RIMCO; Treasurer’s Affidavit signed by Gliceria Tantoco dated 30 June 1965; By–Laws of RIMCO; Certificate of Filing of Certificate of Increase of Capital Stock by RIMCO | To show that RIMCO is a corporation controlled by the Tantocos, known close associates/dummies of President Marcos |
YYY 23 to YYY 33 ZZZ to ZZZ–1 | Amended Articles of Incorporation of RIMCO; Questioned Documents Report No. 729–1101 by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) as requested by Hon. Manuel P. Paras, Legal Director of PCGG, the conclusion of which states that the questioned signatures/handwritings on one hand and the standard sample signatures/handwritings of President Ferdinand E. Marcos on the other hand, were written by one and the same person (using Exhibits “Q–1 and Q–2” and “S–1 to S–40” as bases) | To show that Bienvenido Tantoco is a dummy of President Ferdinand Marcos; To show that the marginal notes/signatures appearing in the subject documents were written/signed by Ferdinand Marcos |
AAAA–1 | Handwritten letter by President Ferdinand E. Marcos (undated) addressed to the Honorable Antonio Logarta thanking him for testifying in “Malundasan” cases which led to Pres. FM’s acquittal | To show that President Marcos made notations and letters to his close associates |
AAAA–2 | Typewritten note to President FM with handwritten notes, dated 23 July 1979 | |
AAAA–3 to AAA–41 | Handwritten notes on notepad with letterhead of the Office of the President of the Philippines, Manila | |
BBBB to BBBB–33 | Microfilm of “questioned documents” | To show that the subject documents containing the handwritten notes of Pres. Marcos were microfilmed |
CCCC to CCCC–11 | Executive Summary on PEMI | To show that PEMI is a Tantoco–controlled corporation and had been granted tax–exemption by virtue of P.D. No. 463 |
DDDD–1 to DDDD–28 | SEC Records of PEMI | To show that PEMI is a Tantoco–controlled corporation |
EEEE to EEEE–15 | TSN of the testimony of Evelyn Singson | To show that Evelyn Singson testified with respect to the correct dollar and peso accounts of the Marcoses at the Security Bank and Trust Company |
FFFF to FFFF–13 | Affidavit dated 18 August 1986 of Evelyn R. Singson directly linking the First Family to Peso and Foreign Currency Savings and Trust Accounts managed and maintained by Rolando Gapud, then President of Security Bank and Trust Company (SBTC) | To establish that the affiant has personal knowledge or aware of the facts or conditions relative to the allegations contained in her affidavit |
GGGG to GGGG–6 | Security Bank and Trust Company (SBCTC) bank documents/credit ticket/certificate of deposit/telegraphic transfer/telex/money transfer involving $4,300,000.00 to Citibank N.A. 153 East Road 53rd St. New York to Account # 1086–9607 of Glockhurst Corp. N.V. | To show the existence of bank transactions involving the SBTC secret bank account of the Marcoses with banks abroad |
HHHH to HHHH–9 | Security Bank and Trust Company (SBCTC) debit tickets/transmittal documents/telex | To prove that there were regular bank transactions, withdrawals and debits with respect to the secret bank accounts of the Marcoses |
IIII to IIII–5 | SBTC debit tickets/telexes/wire transfers | To prove that there were regular bank transactions, withdrawals and debits with respect to the secret bank accounts of the Marcoses |
JJJJ to JJJJ–7 | SBTC debit tickets/wire transfers telexes/transmittal letters | To prove that there were regular bank transactions, withdrawals and debits with respect to the secret bank accounts of the Marcoses |
KKKK to KKKK–4 | SBTC debit tickets/transmittal documents/Irving Trust Documents | To show that there were bank transactions involving the secret bank accounts of the Marcoses at SBTC with banks abroad |
LLLL to LLLL–4 | SBTC debit tickets/transmittal documents/Irving Trust Documents | |
MMMM to MMMM–3 | SBTC debit tickets/transmittal documents/Irving Trust Documents | To show that there were partial withdrawals, debits, and money transfer involving the secret bank accounts of the Marcoses at SBTC with banks abroad |
NNNN to SSSSS–5 | SBTC debit and credit tickets/certificate of deposit/telex/wire, money, and telegraphic transfers/debit advise/Irving Trust Documents | To show that there were bank transactions involving the secret bank accounts of the Marcoses at SBTC with banks abroad |
TTTTT to TTTTT–16 | Affidavit of Apolinario K. Medina dated July 23, 1987, with annexes | To show that Apolinario K. Medina under oath freely and voluntarily made allegations in his Sworn Statement; To establish that the affiant has personal knowledge or aware of the facts or conditions stated in his affidavit. |
TTTTT–17a | Withdrawal on July 28, 1981 by Rustan Investment & Mgt. in the amount of P3,241,393.00 | To show that RIMCO, a Tantoco–controlled corporation, is a conduit of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos in accumulating ill–gotten wealth |
TTTTT–18 to TTTTT–18a | Withdrawal on September 4, 1981 by Philippine Eagle amounting to P3,200,000.00 | To show that PEMI, a Tantoco–controlled corporation, is a conduit of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos in accumulating ill–gotten wealth |
TTTTT–21 to TTTTT–28 | Credit and debit tickets of Traders Royal Bank | To show that there were money transfers, credits, debits involving Marcoses’ secret account at traders Royal Bank with several banks abroad |
UUUUU to UUUUU–16 | Affidavit of Dominador Pangilinan, former Acting President and President of Traders Royal Bank dated July 24, 2987 | To show that Dominador Pangilinan under oath freely and voluntarily made allegations in his Sworn Statement; To establish that the affiant has personal knowledge or aware of the facts or conditions |
UUUUU–17 to UUUUU–17a | Withdrawals of P3,241,393.00 by Rustan Investment and Management Corporation | To show that RIMCO, a Tantoco–controlled corporation, served as a conduit of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos in accumulating ill–gotten wealth |
UUUUU–18 to UUUUU–18a | Withdrawals of P3,200,000.00 by Philippine Eagle Mining Corporation | To show that PEMI, a Tantoco–controlled corporation, is a dummy of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos |
UUUUU–19 to UUUUU–21 | Part of Annexes of Affidavit of Dominador Pangilinan | To show that the affiant has personal knowledge or aware of facts or conditions stated in his affidavit |
VVVVV to VVVVV–1 | Memorandum dated June 6, 2003 of Director Danilo R.V. Daniel, PCGG Research and Development Department to PCGG Commissioners Ruben Carranza, Jr. and Vyva M. Aguirre | To show that as per investigation of PCGG and interviews with the witnesses, the Tantocos and Rustan Investment Corp. were beneficiaries of ill–gotten funds from Marcos Trust Account No. 76–128 in Traders Royal Bank; |
WWWWW to WWWWW–1 | Letter of Richard Lynch, Director of Hammer Galleries dated December 8, 1982 to Gallery Bleue, Rustan’s Makati involving the invoice for the purchase of 3 paintings by Imelda Marcos | To show that the purchase of valuable paintings by Imelda Marcos was coursed through Gallery Bleue of Rustan’s Makati; To show that the Tantocos and/or Rustan’s are dummies of the Marcoses |
XXXXX to XXXXX–1 | Invoice for paintings amounting to $545,000.00 | To show that the purchase of valuable paintings by Imelda Marcos was coursed through Gallery Bleue of Rustan’s Makati |
YYYYY to YYYYY–2 | Acknowledgment by Mrs. Tantoco of Invoice for painting “Hoosick Valley” amounting to $70,000.00 | To show that the Tantocos knowingly acted as dummies, nominees and/or agents of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos in acquiring valuable paintings for the Marcoses |
ZZZZZ | Acknowledgment receipt for the delivery of “Hoosick Valley” painting | |
AAAAAA to AAAAAAA–2 | Bankers Trust Company check dated Dec. 15, 1982 for $70,000.00 to Hammer Galleries by Fe Gimenez under checking account No. 001–34714415 for the Grandma Moses painting | To show that payment of paintings from Hammer Galleries was through Bankers trust Co. Check #485 amounting to $70,000.00 dated 12/15/82 issued by Fe Gimenez, personal secretary of Imelda Marcos |
BBBBBB to BBBBBB–2 | Memorandum dated 23 April 2003 of Director Danilo R.V. Daniel, PCGG Research and Development Department to PCGG Commissioners Ruben Carranza regarding paintings ordered from Hammer Galleries | To show the manner by which the purchase of valuable paintings by the Marcoses using ill–gotten funds was undertaken |
CCCCCC to CCCCCC–3 | Knoedler–Madarco S.A. – New York’s Advice/Invoice for Gallery Bleue dated 20 July 1983 for the purchase of 5 paintings by President and Mrs. Marcos amounting to US$2,200,000.00 | To show that valuable paintings sold to Gallery Bleue in Rustan’s Makati were for the benefit of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos |
DDDDDD to DDDDDD–3 | Citibank, N.A. Debit advice for $810,005.00 | To show that payment to Knoedler–Madarco S.A. for valuable paintings were paid out of the funds of Glockhourst Corporation, an account of Gliceria Tantoco in Citibank N.A. New York |
EEEEEE to EEEEEE–4 | Citibank, N.A. Cashier’s Check No. 38865 for US$810,000.00 dated 22 November 1983 | To show that the Tantocos knowingly acted as dummies, nominees and/or agents of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos in acquiring valuable paintings for the Marcoses |
FFFFFF to FFFFFF–3 | Letter dated 22 November 1983 to Mrs. Tantoco from Peter Sansone of Knoedler–Modarco acknowledging receipt of check payment of $810,000.00 for “Madonna and Child” and “City of Venice Adoring the Christ Child” paintings | To show that Gliceria Tantoco is a close associate, dummy or agent of the Marcoses |
GGGGGG to GGGGGG–(1)2 | Declaration of Oscar M Carino dated 23 June 1987 who narrated the disbursements of PNB–New York Branch of various amounts to individuals and corporations, for the purchase of building at 730 Fifth Avenue, New York and the purchase of the art collection of Mr. Leslie Samuels amounting to US$4,950,000.00 | To show that the disbursements from the General Funds of PNB New York were done under instructions from Mrs. Fe Gimenez, Imelda Marcos herself, Roberto Benedicto or his secretary Betty Rivera, and Benjamin Romualdez To show that Oscar M. Carino has personal knowledge or aware of the other facts or conditions stated in his declaration |
GGGGGG–12a to GGGGGG–12b | Part of the declaration of Mr. Carino which mentioned the participation of Mrs. Gliceria Tantoco during a meeting with Mr. Leslie Samuels for the purchase of art works | To show that the Tantocos knowingly acted as dummies, nominees and/or agents of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos in acquiring valuable paintings for the Marcoses |
HHHHHH to HHHHHH–2a | Agreement between Leslie R. Samuels and Gliceria Tantoco for the purchase of paintings and art works amounting to US$5,950,000.00 | |
IIIIII to IIIIII–1 | Banker’s Trust Company check dated September 3, 1981 for US$1,000,000.00 in favour of Sotheby ParkeBenet, Inc. | To show that a check was issued in favour of Sotheby ParkeBenet, Inc. To show that the Tantocos knowingly acted as dummies, nominees and/or agents of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos in acquiring valuable paintings for the Marcoses |
JJJJJJ to JJJJJJ–1 | Letter dated September 4, 1981 from Alan Forster of Sotheby’s acknowledging receipt from Gliceria Tantoco, Banker’s Trust Company check dated September 3, 1981 amounting to $1,000,000.00 | To show that the Tantocos knowingly acted as dummies, nominees and/or agents of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos in acquiring valuable paintings for the Marcoses |
KKKKKK to KKKKKK–3 | Banker’s Trust Check #02002282 dated September 18, 1981 for $4,950,000.00 | To show that payment for the paintings ordered from Mr. Samuels was paid out of funds from the bank account in Banker’s Trust, New York |
LLLLLL to LLLLLL–2 | Hammer Galleries Invoice dated December 9, 1982 for Gallery Bleue of Rustan’s amounting to US$323,000.00 | To show that the Tantocos knowingly acted as dummies, nominees and/or agents of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos in acquiring valuable paintings for the Marcoses |
MMMMMM to MMMMMM–3 | Banker’s Trust Check #0200 for Hammer Galleries dated December 20, 1982 for $323,000.00 issued by Fe Gimenez | To show that payment for the paintings ordered from Hammer Galleries was paid out of funds from the bank account in Banker’s Trust, New York |
NNNNNN to NNNNNN–3 | Hammer Galleries Invoice dated December 27, 1982 for Gallery Bleue of Rustan’s Makati | To show that the Tantocos knowingly acted as dummies, nominees and/or agents of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos in acquiring valuable paintings for the Marcoses |
OOOOOO to OOOOOO–1 | Banker’s Statement of Account | To show that some Philippine Banks where the Marcoses had accounts transacted with Banker’s Trust Company |
PPPPPP to RRRRRR–3 | Credit Suisse/Palmy Foundation/Debit Advice for different amounts | To show that the funds of foreign foundations were moved/diverted to accounts of known close associates/cronies of the Marcoses |
SSSSSS to SSSSSS–4 | Certificate of Authenticity of Business Records issued by Martin Grossman | To show that several foreign foundations were set up whose funds were later diverted to accounts of known close associates/cronies of the Marcoses |
TTTTTT to TTTTTT–10 | Letter dated February 3, 1984 for Mrs. Gliceria Tantoco Re: Glockhurst Corp., N.V. Current Account #10869607 | To show that Gliceria Tantoco acted as dummy and agent of the Marcoses in the management of account # 10869607 |
UUUUUU to UUUUUU–1 | Debit Advice for P3,241,393.00 | To show that a Manager’s check was issued by Traders Royal Bank from a secret bank account of the Marcoses from said bank in favor of RIMCO |
VVVVVV to VVVVVV–3 | Traders Royal Bank Manager’s Check #000671 dated July 28, 1981 for P3,214,393.00 | |
WWWWWW to WWWWWW–1 | Traders Royal Bank Debit Advise for P4,283,440.29 | To show that the amount was debited from a secret bank account of the Marcoses from Traders Royal Bank in favor of RIMCO |
XXXXXX to XXXXXX–3 | Trader’s Royal Check #001282 for P3,200,000 | To show that a check was issued and debited to the Marcoses’ known trust account with Traders Royal Bank |
YYYYYY to YYYYYY–3 | Letter from Rico Tantoco dated 5/6/82 to Fe Gimenez re Philippine Eagle Mines | To show that the Tantocos are close associates, dummies, agents of the Marcoses |
ZZZZZZ to ZZZZZZ–4 | Status of Holdings in Philippine Eagle Mines, Inc. (PEMI) with grand total of P2,640,351.90 | To show that the Tantocos are close associates, dummies, agents of the Marcoses |
AAAAAAA to AAAAAAA–105 | Affidavit of Rolando Gapud dated August 1, 1987 with Annexes | To prove that Rolando C. Gapud is a crony, dummy, nominee, agent or trustee of the late Ferdinand Marcos and Imelda Marcos in several companies or entities; To prove that President Marcos and Imelda took advantage of their official position for personal gain or benefit to the prejudice and damage of the Filipino people.2 |
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration dated October 23, 2008 is partly granted thus: Exhibits “MMM” to “AAAAAAA” inclusive are hereby denied admission. Inferentially and as a corollary incident defendants’ motion to prevent the plaintiff from introducing those documents in evidence is considered granted. however, Exhibits “FF”, “GG”, “GG–1”, “HH”, “XX”, “YY”, “ZZ”, “AAA”, “BBB” and “CCC” are admitted but subject to the qualifications hereinabove noted. Plaintiff’s Motion to Present Original Documents dated October 20, 2008 is hereby noted.
So ordered.
Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. — When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following cases:
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole; and
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office.
The primary purpose of the Best Evidence Rule is to ensure that the exact contents of a writing are brought before the court, considering that (a) the precision in presenting to the court the exact words of the writing is of more than average importance, particularly as respects operative or dispositive instruments, such as deeds, wills and contracts, because a slight variation in words may mean a great difference in rights; (b) there is a substantial hazard of inaccuracy in the human process of making a copy by handwriting or typewriting; and (c) as respects oral testimony purporting to give from memory the terms of a writing, there is a special risk of error, greater than in the case of attempts at describing other situations generally. The rule further acts as an insurance against fraud. Verily, if a party is in the possession of the best evidence and withholds it, and seeks to substitute inferior evidence in its place, the presumption naturally arises that the better evidence is withheld for fraudulent purposes that its production would expose and defeat. Lastly, the rule protects against misleading inferences resulting from the intentional or unintentional introduction of selected portions of a larger set of writings.
But the evils of mistransmission of critical facts, fraud, and misleading inferences arise only when the issue relates to the terms of the writing. Hence, the Best Evidence Rule applies only when the terms of a writing are in issue. When the evidence sought to be introduced concerns external facts, such as the existence, execution or delivery of the writing, without reference to its terms, the Best Evidence Rule cannot be invoked. In such a case, secondary evidence may be admitted even without accounting for the original.
The purpose, flexibility, and fact–intensive nature of the application of the best evidence rule persuade us that the following factors are appropriately considered when distinguishing between whether it is the content of the document or merely its existence that a witness intends to testify concerning:(a) the relative importance of content in the case, (b) the simplicity or complexity of content and consequent risk of error in admitting a testimonial account, (c) the strength of the proffered evidence and the presence or absence of bias or self–interest on the part of the witnesses, (d) the breadth of the margin for error within which mistake in a testimonial account would not undermine the point to be proved, (e) the presence or absence of the actual dispute as to content, (f) the ease or difficulty of producing the writing, and (g) the reasons why the proponent of other proof of its content does not have or offer the writing itself.7
Section 3. Other consequences. — If any party or an officer or managing agent of a party refuses to obey an order made under section 1 of this Rule requiring him to answer designated questions, or an order under Rule 27 to produce any document or other thing for inspection, copying, or photographing or to permit it to be done, or to permit entry upon land or other property or an order made under Rule 28 requiring him to submit to a physical or mental examination, the court may make such orders in regard to the refusal as are just, and among others the following:
(a) An order that the matters regarding which the questions were asked, or the character or description of the thing or land, or the contents of the paper, or the physical or mental condition of the party, or any other designated facts shall be taken to be established for the purposes of the action in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order;
(b) An order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses or prohibiting him from introducing in evidence designated documents or things or items of testimony, or from introducing evidence of physical or mental condition;
(c) An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party; and
(d) In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, an order directing the arrest of any party or agent of a party for disobeying any of such orders except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination.
We hold that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the aforesaid Order. It is not fair to penalize Gateway for not complying with the request of Solidbank for the production and inspection of documents, considering that the documents sought were not particularly described. Gateway and its officers can only be held liable for unjust refusal to comply with the modes of discovery if it is shown that the documents sought to be produced were specifically described, material to the action and in the possession, custody or control of Gateway.
Neither can it be said that Gateway did not exert effort in complying with the order for production and inspection of documents since it presented the invoices representing the billings sent by Gateway to Alliance in relation to the Back–end Services Agreement. Good faith effort to produce the required documents must be accorded to Gateway, absent a finding that it acted willfully, in bad faith or was at fault in failing to produce the documents sought to be produced. (Bold emphasis supplied)
The x x x requirement of “willfulness” is imposed under Section 3(b), Rule 29 on Refusal to Make Discovery, Revised Rules of Court, which provides that the Court may prohibit a party for refusing to comply with a discovery order from introducing in evidence documents designated therein. Thus, it has been held that under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Court Procedure from which the above cited Section 3, Rule 29 was taken:But such discretion [to make whatever disposition is just in the light of the facts of the particular case] must be exercised in a judicious manner, and relief under the rule is justified only in the exceptional case such as where the recalcitrant party has acted in willful disregard of, or with gross indifference to, an order of court requiring discovery or with such deliberate callousness or negligence as to occasion an inability to comply with the court’s order. (Wembley, Inc. vs. Diplomat Tie Co. (DC Md) 216 F Supp. 565)In this case, there is no evidence that the plaintiff willfully disobeyed or disregarded the Resolution issued on August 25, 1989. Absent such proof and consistently with good faith which is presumed, the non–production or non–marking of the additional exhibits at the discovery proceedings could be attributed to inadvertence rather than willful disobedience, considering that the record from which Exhibits A to LLL and submarkings were collated was voluminous or that the relevance and importance of Exhibits MMM to QQQ and submarkings were overlooked at that time and consequently omitted from being produced or marked as evidence.
Absent proof of plaintiff’s willful failure to comply with discovery order, order precluding him from offering proof tending to contradict certain defense would not be granted (Campbell vs. Johnson (DC NY) 101 F. Supp. 705)
Section 19. Classes of Documents. — For the purpose of their presentation evidence, documents are either public or private.
Public documents are:
(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;
(b) Documents acknowledge before a notary public except last wills and testaments; and
(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered therein.
All other writings are private.
The nature of documents as either public or private determines how the documents may be presented as evidence in court. A public document, by virtue of its official or sovereign character, or because it has been acknowledged before a notary public (except a notarial will) or a competent public official with the formalities required by law, or because it is a public record of a private writing authorized by law, is self–authenticating and requires no further authentication in order to be presented as evidence in court. In contrast, a private document is any other writing, deed, or instrument executed by a private person without the intervention of a notary or other person legally authorized by which some disposition or agreement is proved or set forth. Lacking the official or sovereign character of a public document, or the solemnities prescribed by law, a private document requires authentication in the manner allowed by law or the Rules of Court before its acceptance as evidence in court. The requirement of authentication of a private document is excused only in four instances, specifically: (a) when the document is an ancient one within the context of Section 21, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court; (b) when the genuineness and authenticity of an actionable document have not been specifically denied under oath by the adverse party; (c) when the genuineness and authenticity of the document have been admitted; or (d) when the document is not being offered as genuine.21
Section 20. Proof of private document. — Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either:
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.
Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be.
Section 24. Proof of official record. — The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office.
Section 25. What attestation of copy must state. — Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of evidence, the attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court.
Section 27. Public record of a private document. — An authorized public record of a private document may be proved by the original record, or by a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody.
Endnotes:
1 G.R. No. 90478, November 21, 1991, 204 SCRA 212.
2Rollo, pp. 87–101.
3 Id. at 213–215
4 Id. at 58.
5 G.R. No. 170604, September 2, 2013, 704 SCRA 465, 478–479.
6 428 F.3d. 214 (2005)
7 Id. at 218–219
8E.g., Commonwealth v. Harris, 719 A.2d 1049, 1051 (1998); Nelson v. State Bd. of Veterinary Med., 938 A.2d 1163.
9 Id.
10 See Renfrew, Discovery Sanctions: A Judicial Perspective, 67 Cal. L.Rev. 2 (1979), p. 268.
11 Litigation–Ending Sanctions: Alaska Court’s Use of Rule 37, 2 Alaska Law Review 77, 81.
12 G.R. No. 97654, November 14, 1994, 238 SCRA 88.
13 Id. at 93.
14 G.R. No. 164805, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 256, 271.
15Steele v. Aramark Corp., 36 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 683 (2013).
16Rollo, pp. 25–26.
17 Id. at 162–165.
18 Salas v. Sta. Mesa Market Corporation, G.R. No. 157766, July 12, 2007, 527 SCRA 465, 471.
19 Francisco, R.J., Basic Evidence, 1999 Edition, p. 277.
20 G.R. No. 164457, April 11, 2012, 669 SCRA 135.
21 Id. at 156–157.
22 Exhibits “NNN,” “OOO,” “PPP,” “XXX,” “AAAA–41,” “WWWWW” “FFFFFF,” “JJJJJJ,” “TTTTTT,” and “YYYYYY.”
23 Exhibit “CCCC.”
24 Exhibit “WWW.”
25 Exhibits “FFFF,” “TTTTTT,” “UUUUU,” “GGGGGG,” “AAAAAAA,” and “ZZZZZZ.”
26 Exhibits “XXXXX to ZZZZZ,” “CCCCCC,” “LLLLLL,” and “NNNNNN.”
27 Exhibits “GGGG–SSSSS,” “AAAAAA,” “DDDDDD to EEEEEE,” “IIIIII,” “KKKKKK,” “MMMMMM,” “OOOOOO to SSSSSS,” and “UUUUUU to XXXXXX.”
28 Exhibit “HHHHHH.”
29 Exhibit “CCCC.”
29 Rollo, p. 35.
30 Id. at 117 and 122.
31 Id. at 35