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 tum, petitioner Republic filed a Comment Opposition dated May 9, 2005, 20 to which respondent De Borja filed a Reply dated June 2, 2005. 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 tum, 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. Subsequently, upon the conclusion of its presentation of evidence, petitioner Republic submitted its Formal Offer of Evidence dated March 6, 1995. 17Īfter the filing of the parties' responsive pleadings, trial on the merits ensued. 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. Verano 16 (Verano), a witness for petitioner Republic. 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.
14Velasco 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 commissions in exchange for the granting of permits, licenses, and/or charters to oil tankers to service PNOC. 0003 and the alleged conduit for address commissions. 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.
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. 11 Allegedly, during the tenure of Velasco, no address commissions were remitted to PNOC. 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 percent (5%) of the total freight. 9 Herein respondent De Borja is Velasco's nephew.
0003, was the President and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC). Velasco (Velasco), one of the defendants in 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.
The case stems from a Complaint 7 filed by petitioner Republic, represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government, for "Accounting, Reconveyance, Forfeiture, Restitution, and Damages" (Complaint) before the SB (Civil Case No. 4 The Resolution dated Jgranted respondent Alfredo De Borja's (De Borja) Demurrer to Evidence dated Ap5 (Demurrer to Evidence), while the Resolution dated Madenied petitioner Republic of the Philippines' (Republic) Motion for Reconsideration dated Aug6 of the Resolution dated July 31, 2008. Before this Court is an Appeal by Certiorari 1 filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (Petition), seeking review of the Resolutions dated J2 and Ma3 issued by the Sandiganbayan (SB) - First Division in Civil Case No.