Sandiganbayan rejects new witness testimonies in Marcos ill-gotten wealth case

MANILA, Philippines — The prosecution’s attempt to use the Sandiganbayan Third Division witnesses in another Marcos Sr. crony ill-gotten money case was denied.

On June 13, Sandiganbayan’s Fourth Division denied a motion for a Third Division officer to identify the stenographic notes (TSN) transcript with unrepresented witness testimonies.

The Third Division heard Civil Case No. 009 about shares bought by Marcos Sr.’s cronies from the Eastern Telecommunications Phils Inc. (ETPI) using ill-gotten wealth obtained during the former president’s over two-decade rule.

Meanwhile, the Fourth Division handles Civil Case No. 0178, closely related to Civil Case No. 009.

READ: Sandiganbayan junks bid to suspend case on telco firm shares

The prosecution filed the motion because certain witnesses had died, were unavailable, unwilling, or abroad.

However, the Fourth Division, in the resolution authored by Associate Justice Lorifel Pahimna, said that while the prosecution’s purpose for asking the TSN would be to prove that the witnesses indeed testified, the anti-graft court said they “cannot help but take the view” that it would be used as evidence.

If used as evidence, it would prevent the defendant’s counsel from cross-examining the testimonies, as the witnesses cannot be presented physically.

“Moreover, although the presentation of the unnamed officer of the Third Division as a witness in this case, as the plaintiff suggests, seeks only to establish that Caesar Parlade, Potenciano Roque, Severino Buan Jr., and Apolinario Medina had testified in Civil Case No. 009, and to identify the TSN of their testimonies, this Court cannot help but take the view that the plaintiff intends to adopt their testimonies and exhibits therein to form part of the records of the case,” the Fourth Division said.

“It is in this light that the defendants understandably take issue on the curtailment, if not denial, of their right to cross-examine the said witnesses,” it added.

The anti-graft court admitted that both cases — Civil Case No. 009 and 0187 — are closely related.  Still, the Fourth Division maintained that allowing the prosecution to present the testimonies made in Civil Case No. 009 now would deprive the defendants of the right to cross-examine the witness — especially since they could not do that in the case with the Third Division.

“Needless to say, the instant case and Civil Case No. 009 are closely related or interwoven, as they both seek to establish the ill-gotten nature of the ETPI shares of stock held by the defendants.  Yet, the defendants herein were not impleaded nor involved in the proceedings in Civil Case No. 009, and as such were not allowed to confront or cross-examine the witnesses presented therein,” the Fourth Division stated.

“To permit the plaintiff now to introduce the testimonies […] in Civil Case No. 009 through mere identification of their TSNs by an officer of the Third Division would unduly deprive herein defendants of their right to be confronted at the trial by, and to cross-examine, the witnesses against them,” it added.

Last December 2019, Marcos Sr.’s cronies lost in Civil Case No. 009, with Sandiganbayan asking them to return shares in ETPI and other companies.

READ: Heirs of Marcos cronies lose wealth case

But in September 2020, Sandiganbayan reversed its initial decision requiring the heirs of Marcos Sr.’s cronies to pay exemplary damages after losing the civil case.

je/abc