FOUR decades since the commission of the crime, the Sandiganbayan convicted three cronies of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos of nine counts of graft for conniving with each other to receive P36.9 million in behest loans from 1972 to 1980.
In a resolution promulgated March 26, the antigraft court five-member Special Third Division found guilty beyond reasonable doubt Leticia Teodoro, Marfina Singian and Gregorio Singian, three former officials of Integrated Shoe Inc. (ISI) for violating the antigraft law.
ISI is one of the 419 corporations investigated by the Presidential Commission on Good Government as Marcos’ alleged business associates who were granted behest loans. Marcos was ousted from power in a popular revolt on allegations of ill-gotten wealth.
The court sentenced the shoe company officials to a six year and one month to 10-year imprisonment for each count.
The court found the officials guilty of conspiring with the Philippine National Bank in the grant of P16.287 million in five-year, confirmed irrevocable loan credit in 1972, and subsequent loan accommodations from 1972 to 1980 worth P20.6 million.
“The prosecution had established that there was conspiracy among the accused when the PNB granted several loan accommodations in favor of the ISI…” the court said.
The court likewise noted that the grant was disadvantageous to government because the shoe company was undercapitalized and the loans were undercollaterized.
When the shoe company was granted the P16 million loan credit, its capital stock was only P1 million, according to the resolution.
The company was only able to increase its authorized capital stock to only P7 million in 1973, at the time the corporation was already indebted by P16.36 million already, the court said.
By 1983, the loan had ballooned to P71.847 million, but PNB was able to foreclose only P5.286 million.
“All loans… were granted despite failure of the ISI to raise its working capital, and to put up additional collateral… The Sandiganbayan also found that the loan transactions were grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government,” the court said. AC