P581.3-million forfeiture case vs Marcoses dismissed
The Sandiganbayan Centennial Building in Quezon City. (INQUIRER.net file photo)
MANILA, Philippines – The government has lost a 36-year quest to recover almost P600 million in assets from the Marcoses as well as from the cronies of the late Ferdinand Marcos and his widow, Imelda, after the Sandiganbayan dismissed another one of the civil forfeiture cases filed against them.
Among the defendants in Civil Case No. 14 is Marcos’ son and heir, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.
In a 45-page decision, the Sandiganbayan’s Second Division on Tuesday ruled that state prosecutors failed to prove that close associates of the Marcoses had acted as dummies for them in acquiring ownership and control over several hotel and resort companies through loans from government-run institutions.
The antigraft court said there was “insufficient” evidence that those assets were “ill-gotten,” noting that some of the documents presented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) during the trial were mere photocopies.
While in exile
When the case was filed on July 22, 1987, the PCGG, a body formed after the 1986 Edsa People Power Revolution to recover the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcos family and their cronies, accused Modesto, Trinidad and Leandro Enriquez; Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio; and Don Ferry, Roman Cruz and Gregorio Castillo of taking advantage of their close ties with the Marcoses, who were in exile in Hawaii at that time.
Article continues after this advertisementThey allegedly secured loans and financial assistance from the Government Service Insurance System and the Development Bank of the Philippines.
Article continues after this advertisementThe companies involved were Fantasia Filipina Resorts, Inc.; Hotel Properties, Inc.; Monte Sol Development Corp.; Ocean Villas Condominium Corp.; Olas del Mar Development Corp.; Philippine Village Hotel; Philroad Construction Corp.; Puerto Azul Beach and Country Club Inc.; Silahis International Hotel; Sulo-Dobbs Food Services Inc.; and Ternate Development Corp.
State prosecutors were attempting to forfeit in the government’s favor assets valued at around P581.3 million, on top of seeking damages.
As heirs of the late dictator, Mr. Marcos and his sisters Imee and Irene were named defendants in the civil case, along with the legal heirs of their parents’ deceased codefendants.
The Sandiganbayan said the evidence presented by the PCGG, through the Office of the Solicitor General, failed to “sufficiently establish” its case and was “insufficient to declare the subject assets and properties as ‘ill-gotten.’”
For instance, “nothing on the face of the documents would show that the subject corporations or the amounts paid in the stocks of the said corporations came from the government nor acquired by them through illegal means or through their relationship with the Marcoses,” according to the decision written by Associate Justice Arthur Malabaguio.
Concurring with the decision were Associate Justices Edgardo Caldona and Oscar Herrera Jr., division chair.
“Nothing on the face of these documents shows that defendants Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos had any interest or control over the subject corporations,” the court said.
‘Barely readable’
The court also noted the “lack of proper authentication” on pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution, including writs of sequestration, a syndicated loan agreement, mortgage trust indenture, transfer certificates, deeds of assignment, deeds of absolute sale, and a judicial affidavit.
Most of the documentary evidence presented were “mere photocopies” of the documents under the PCGG’s custody, “most of which are barely readable,” the court observed.
“That said, regardless of whether an exhibit is an original, a ‘duplicate’ of a document, or secondary evidence, it must still be presented at trial in the manner provided for by the Rules in Evidence before it can be admitted into evidence,” it added.
In June 2022, just days before his inauguration as President, Mr. Marcos and his family members were given another chance to present evidence in Civil Case No. 14.
In a 13-page resolution dated June 22, 2022, the Second Division partially granted the motion from the Marcoses to explain their side, rejecting the prosecution’s argument that the defendants had already waived their right to present evidence when they failed to attend the hearing in 2019.
On June 23, the Sandiganbayan’s Third Division dismissed Civil Case No. 167, the forfeiture case against Imelda Marcos’ brother, Alfredo “Bejo” Romualdez, in connection with the sale of 42 parcels of land in various parts of the country which the government had sought to recover in 1996 after their sequestration a decade earlier.
The court dismissed the case against Romualdez, his wife, Agnes, and other parties, on the ground that the continuing pendency of the case violated the defendants’ constitutional right to its speedy disposition.
