Anti-graft court junks forfeiture of telco shares
The Sandiganbayan Centennial Building in Quezon City. (INQUIRER.net file photo)
MANILA, Philippines — The Sandiganbayan has dismissed a 1997 forfeiture case against alleged dummies of deceased former President Ferdinand Marcos after prosecutors tried to present a lone witness who did not even have personal knowledge of the ownership of shares in Eastern Telecommunications Philippines Inc. (ETPI).
In a resolution dated Jan. 10, the antigraft court’s Fourth Division granted the respondents’ demurrer to evidence in Civil Case No. 0178 involving 3,305 shares in ETPI, which were allegedly acquired for Marcos by the respondents, whom prosecutors referred to as the “Nieto group.”
The prosecutors initially intended to present nine witnesses and related documentary evidence, but the affidavits of eight witnesses were excluded because the witnesses themselves had already died, refused to testify, or could no longer be found by the Presidential Commission on Good Government’s (PCGG).
Prosecutors could only present Maria Lourdes Magno, the chief of the Presidential Commission on Good Government’s (PCGG) library and records division, to attest to the existence of documents showing bank transactions that were purportedly connected to the ETPI shares.
However, the court’s Fourth Division — composed of Associate Justices Lorifel Lacap Pahimna, Georgina Hidalgo, and Michael Frederick Musngi, the division chair — was not convinced.
Article continues after this advertisement“The Court cannot simply take, hook, line and sinker, the innuendo baited by the plaintiff,” the court said in the resolution written by Pahimna with both Hidalgo and Musngi concurring.
Article continues after this advertisementREAD: Sandiganbayan junks ill-gotten case vs Marcos associates
READ: Sandiganbayan admits more evidence vs Marcoses in Baseco land case
Credibility watered down
“[T]he credibility of the witness was watered down by the stipulation entered into by the parties that she has no personal knowledge of the truth and veracity of contents [of the documents],” the Sandiganbayan said in the resolution written by Pahimna.
The court noted that the Supreme Court already ruled in 2012 that Magno, as custodian of PCGG records, could testify on the existence of the documents presented to the court.
“However, Ms. Magno is incompetent to testify on the contents of the documents under her custody, which is the very subject of inquiry in this case,” the court said.
The Fourth Division also noted that despite these facts, the prosecution still proceeded with presenting Magno “with full knowledge that her credibility had already eroded.”
Cleared from the civil case are members of the “Nieto group,” namely Rosario N. Arellano, Victoria N. Legarda, Angela N. Lobregat, Benito V. Nieto, Carlos V. Nieto, Manuel V. Nieto III, Ma. Rita N. Delos Reyes, Carmen N. Tuazon, Ramon Nieto Jr., Ramon V. Nieto, Benigno Manuel Valdes and Rafael C. Valdes.
