Republic of the Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan

Appellate review of Sandiganbayan decisions is confined to questions of law, and a factual finding of no prima facie basis for a PCGG sequestration writ will not be reweighed where no competent evidence links the sequestered shares to Marcos or his cronies.

HMHMI was organized to serve as a holding company for the shares of Hans M. Menzi, Jose Y. Campos, Cesar C. Zalamea and Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. in Bulletin Publishing Corporation and for Menzi shares in Liwayway Publishing, Inc., Menzi and Company, Inc., Menzi Agricultural, Inc., Menzi Development Corporation and M and M Consolidated, Inc. The Republic, represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), pursued reconveyance and reversion of alleged ill-gotten wealth before the Sandiganbayan in Civil Case No. 0022. Sequestration under Section 26, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution supplied the provisional mechanism for preserving assets pending that action.

On May 5, 1982, Manuel G. Montecillo, Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr., Cesar C. Zalamea and Jose Y. Campos organized HMHMI to serve as a holding company for their shares in Bulletin Publishing Corporation and for Hans M. Menzi's shares in Liwayway Publishing, Inc., Menzi and Company, Inc., Menzi Agricultural, Inc., Menzi Development Corporation and M and M Consolidated, Inc. Hans M. Menzi died on June 27, 1984, and on July 6, 1984 the court appointed Montecillo executor of his estate; Montecillo later became president of HMHMI, while Cojuangco, Zalamea and Campos, with the lone exception of Montecillo, constituted its principal stockholders and incorporators.

On February 12, 1987, the PCGG issued Sequestration Writ No. 87-0206 against all shares of stocks, assets, properties, records and documents of HMHMI, and on the same day requested the Central Bank Governor to instruct commercial banks and non-bank financial institutions to disallow withdrawals by Liwayway Publishing and HMHMI. Forthwith, on February 13, 1987, Central Bank Governor Fernandez so instructed those institutions. Thereafter, on July 29, 1987, petitioner filed with the Sandiganbayan a complaint for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages against Montecillo, Cojuangco, Zalamea, Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos, docketed as Civil Case No. 0022, and on October 17, 1990 filed a Second Amended Complaint naming specifically the Estate of Hans M. Menzi as defendant.

The Estate, on behalf of HMHMI, sought lifting of the freeze order on the grounds that HMHMI had been sequestered without being impleaded and that failure to file the corresponding judicial action within the reglementary period resulted in automatic lifting on August 12, 1987. After remand for determination of prima facie basis, the Sandiganbayan found from the evidence adduced that the late Hans M. Menzi had owned Bulletin Publishing Corporation almost one hundred percent since 1957, except Bulletin shares sold to U.S. Automotive Corporation in 1985, those converted to treasury shares in 1986, and those sold to the general public at public offerings. The Sandiganbayan further found no competent evidence thus far showing that President Ferdinand E. Marcos or his cronies ever acquired Bulletin shares of Menzi or HMHMI subject to sequestration, and accordingly lifted the writ.

• Authority Over Sequestration Incidents: Respondents maintained that the Sandiganbayan has full authority to decide on all incidents in the ill-gotten wealth case, including the propriety of the writs of sequestration initially issued by the PCGG.
• Absence of Prima Facie Basis: Respondents maintained that the evidence submitted to the Sandiganbayan showed Menzi's near-complete ownership of Bulletin since 1957 and no competent showing of acquisition by Marcos or his cronies, supporting the lifting of the writ.

• Nature of Review: Whether the challenge to the lifting of sequestration presents a question of law reviewable by the Supreme Court or a factual question requiring reexamination of evidence.
• Prima Facie Basis for Sequestration: Whether there was prima facie factual basis for the issuance of the writ of sequestration over the assets, shares of stock, property, records and bank deposits of HMHMI.

• Nature of Review: No. The issue is factual, and Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over Sandiganbayan decisions is limited to questions of law, precluding reweighing of evidence and credibility.
• Prima Facie Basis for Sequestration: No. No prima facie factual basis was shown, absent competent evidence that Marcos or his cronies acquired Bulletin shares of Menzi or HMHMI.

• Nature of Review: A question of law concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to admitted facts without examining probative value, while a question of fact arises as to truth or falsehood of facts and invites calibration of the whole evidence, witness credibility, surrounding circumstances and probability. Because the petition disputed the Sandiganbayan's evaluation of ownership and acquisition evidence for sequestration, the doubt was factual. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and does not examine and weigh anew the evidence below, so the factual determination must stand absent grave abuse.
• Prima Facie Basis for Sequestration: The Sandiganbayan, having full authority over incidents including propriety of PCGG writs, assessed the evidence submitted so far and found Menzi's ownership of Bulletin almost one hundred percent since 1957, save shares sold to U.S. Automotive Corporation in 1985, shares converted to treasury in 1986, and shares sold to the public. In the absence of competent evidence thus far that Marcos or his cronies ever acquired Menzi or HMHMI Bulletin shares subject to sequestration, the lifting of the February 12, 1987 writ could not be voided for grave abuse of discretion.

• Appellate jurisdiction over Sandiganbayan decisions limited to questions of law — Review of Sandiganbayan decisions or final orders is confined to questions of law. Applied to bar reexamination of the Sandiganbayan's factual conclusion that no prima facie basis supported the HMHMI sequestration.
• Distinction between questions of law and questions of fact — A question of law exists when doubt concerns correct application of law or jurisprudence to certain facts or does not require examining probative value with truth or falsehood of facts admitted; a question of fact exists when doubt concerns truth or falsehood of facts or invites calibration of the whole evidence, witness credibility, surrounding circumstances and their relation to each other and to the whole, and probability of the situation. Applied to characterize the prima facie basis dispute as factual.
• Supreme Court not a trier of facts — The Supreme Court does not examine and weigh anew the evidence presented below. Applied to decline reweighing of evidence on Bulletin ownership and alleged Marcos acquisition.
• Sandiganbayan authority over sequestration incidents — The Sandiganbayan has full authority to decide all incidents in ill-gotten wealth cases, including propriety of PCGG-issued writs of sequestration. Applied to sustain its competence to lift the HMHMI writ after evaluating prima facie basis on remand.

• "It is well settled that the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over decisions or final orders of the Sandiganbayan is limited to questions of law." — States the controlling limit on review that rendered the factual sequestration dispute non-reviewable.
• "A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts; or when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted." — Gives the canonical test for identifying a question of law as opposed to fact.
• "A question of facts exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances as well as their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of the situation." — Defines factual questions, under which the prima facie basis issue was classified.
• "The Supreme court is not a trier of facts. It is not the Court’s function to examine and weigh all over again the evidence presented in the proceedings below." — States the reason for refusing to reevaluate Bulletin ownership and Marcos-link evidence.

• Rodriguez vs. Sandiganbayan, 177 SCRA 220, 225 [1989] — Cited, via Gabison vs. Sandiganbayan, as authority that Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over Sandiganbayan decisions is limited to questions of law.
• United Resources vs. Development Bank of the Philippines, 200 SCRA 751-755 [1991]; Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila vs. Court of Appeals, 327 Phil. 810 [1996]; China Road and Bridge Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 348 SCRA 401 [2000] — Cited as authorities defining a question of law based on application of law to facts without examining probative value.
• China Road and Bridge Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 348 SCRA 401 [2000] — Cited as authority defining a question of fact based on truth or falsehood of facts and calibration of evidence.
• Trade Unions of the Philippines vs. Laguesma, 236 SCRA 586, 591 [1994]; Navarro vs. Court of Appeals, 209 SCRA 612, 623 [1992] — Cited as authorities that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and does not reweigh evidence.

• Section 26, Article XVIII, 1987 Constitution — Invoked by the Estate to argue automatic lifting of sequestration on August 12, 1987 for failure to file the corresponding judicial action against HMHMI within the reglementary period.
• Rule 65, Revised Rules of Court — Basis of the petition for certiorari to nullify the Sandiganbayan resolutions of April 13, 1998 and August 21, 1998, requiring a showing of grave abuse of discretion.
• Republic Act No. 8493 — Mandate under which the Sandiganbayan was directed to proceed with final disposition of Civil Case No. 0022, completing trial within six months from notice and deciding within three months from submission.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.