Sandiganbayan junks case vs Lucio Tan

Lucio Tan. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

The Sandiganbayan has dismissed the government’s nearly 25-year-old forfeiture case against tobacco and beer tycoon Lucio Tan

The antigraft court said the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) failed to prove that Tan and the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos, along with other defendants, collaborated to amass ill-gotten wealth.

“This court is left with no choice but to dismiss the instant case against the defendants,” the Sandiganbayan’s Fifth Division said in its 156-page ruling.

Aside from Tan, the defendants in the civil case include Imelda Marcos and her children—Imee Marcos, Irene Araneta, and Ferdinand “Bong Bong” Marcos Jr.—as representatives of the estate of the late dictator; Mariano Tanenglian; Carmen Khao Tan; and Don Ferry.

The case was filed in July 1987. The PCGG had alleged that Tan’s companies were granted favors by Marcos and that the latter actually owned majority of the tycoon’s companies. The companies involved were Fortune Tobacco Corp., Asia Brewery, Allied Banking Corp., Foremost Farms, Himmel Industries, Grandspan Development Corp., Silangan Holdings, Dominium Realty and Construction Corp., and Shareholdings Inc.

Putting it to rest

Tan’s lawyer, Estelito Mendoza, said in a statement that the dismissal of the civil case against Tan “should put to rest any claim that the assets of Lucio C. Tan have been acquired through illegal means.”

“It is Dr. Tan’s hope that with this decision of the Sandiganbayan, the PCGG will relent in its effort to lay claim to his assets and in restricting the exercise of full rights over those properties,” added Mendoza, Marcos’ former justice secretary.

He noted that the PCGG had sequestered almost all of Tan’s shares of stocks in his major corporations. The sequestrations were nullified in 1993 and 2006. He said the court’s ruling confirmed the illegality of the sequestration.

But Mendoza said the PCGG was still limiting Tan’s control over his properties. The PCGG had objected to the merger of Allied Bank and Philippine National Bank because of Allied Bank’s involvement in the forfeiture case, he noted.

With the Sandiganbayan ruling, he hopes the merger would be approved soon.

“The delay has not only been prejudicial to the stockholders but to the banking system and the economy of the country,” Mendoza said.

In its decision, the Sandiganbayan said the PCGG was “remiss” in its duty to prove that the assets it sought to recover were considered ill-gotten. The court said the Marcos administration’s granting of favors to the corporation did not mean that its shares of stocks would be owned by the government.

The court also said the documents that the PCGG presented were just photocopies, in violation of the rules of court.

It also said many witnesses the PCGG presented in relation to the documents were not qualified to testify on these because they had no direct hand in their preparation.

Not convinced

As for the affidavit of self-confessed Marcos financial executor Rolando Gapud, the Sandiganbayan said it was still classified as hearsay evidence because Gapud was not placed on the witness stand.

Gapud had said in his affidavit that Tan and Marcos had a business alliance and had an agreement that Marcos would own 60 percent of Shareholdings Inc. The latter owns shares of Fortune Tobacco, Asia Beer Brewery, Allied Bank, and Foremost Farms.

The Sandiganbayan was also not convinced by the PCGG’s contention that the assertions of Imelda Marcos showed her admission that her husband had a beneficial interest in Tan’s businesses and had acquired interest in the properties.

It noted that Imelda had filed a cross-claim against Tan’s assets, which was contrary to the PCGG’s plea that these be reconveyed to the state.

The court also gave little weight to the PCGG’s assertion that the testimony of Sen. Ferdinand “Bong Bong” Marcos Jr. had confirmed the Marcos family’s partnership with Tan and their beneficial interest and ownership in the assets and other properties involved the forfeiture case.

But according to the court, Bong Bong Marcos’ testimony only showed that Tan privately owned the shares of stocks in the various corporations.

Mere hearsay

“Obviously, whatever information Bong-Bong testified and presented before the Court are merely hearsay and do not contain any probative value to prove that the shares of stock in question originated from the government itself and that they must have been taken by former President Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, close friends, and close associates by illegal means,” it said.

The rest of the defendants in the case are Florencio Santos; Natividad Santos; Domingo Chua; Tan Hui Nee; the estate of Benito Tan Kee Hiong represented by Tarciana Tan; Florencio Santos Jr.; Harry Tan; Tan Eng Chan; Chung Poe Kee; Mariano Khoo; Manuel Khoo; Miguel Khoo; Jaime Khoo; Elizabeth Khoo; Celso Ranola; William Wong; Ernesto Lim; Benjamin Albacita; Willy Co; Federico Moreno; Panfilo Domingo; and the estate of Gregorio Licaros and Cesar Zalamea.—With Tetch Torres, INQUIRER.net