The Sandiganbayan Second Division has affirmed its decision to dismiss the P1.052-billion forfeiture case against former dictator Ferdinand Marcos, his wife Imelda and the Tantoco couple, owners of the Rustan Group of Companies.
In a resolution, the antigraft court denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the government since there was no new argument presented that would merit the reversal of the decision.
No new argument
“In this case, no new argument was presented by plaintiff Republic of the Philippines in the instant motion. The arguments raised therein have already been judiciously passed upon and properly considered by the court in the assailed decision, which states that the documentary and testimonial evidence presented by the plaintiff are insufficient to prove the allegations in the expanded complaint,” the resolution, dated Nov. 20 but released on Friday said.
In September, the Sandiganbayan dismissed another forfeiture case against the Marcoses due to insufficiency of evidence to prove that Bienvenido Tantoco and his relatives acted as dummies of Marcos and his family in acquiring expensive assets.
Allegations not proven
In the original expanded complaint, Tantocos, along with the Marcoses were accused of reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages as they allegedly acquired the franchise to operate duty-free shops meant to conceal the ownership of the alleged illegally obtained assets.
But in its decision to dismiss the case, the antigraft court said the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), the agency tasked to recover the dictator’s ill-gotten wealth, failed to prove the allegations.
The court also dismissed the case since PCGG merely presented as evidence Tantoco’s letters to Marcos asking for favors. Only four witnesses were called to the stand.
The Sandiganbayan then said these weren’t enough to prove that the Tantocos were dummies of the Marcoses.
No new evidence
Earlier this month, the Sandiganbayan allowed the Philippine government, through the prosecution to file a motion for reconsideration.
In the said motion, the prosecution argued that several of the defendants’ pleadings related to the case actually admitted to the allegations in the complaint pertaining to the ill-gotten nature of Tourist Duty Free Shops assets.
Because of these supposed admissions, the prosecution argued that the material allegations in the complaint have in fact been sufficiently established.
However, the antigraft court did not agree. It upheld the earlier dismissal since the prosecution did not present any new evidence that would merit a different decision.