MANILA, Philippines — The anti-graft court Sandiganbayan has upheld its earlier ruling dismissing a P267.371-million civil forfeiture case against the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos, his wife Imelda Marcos and five of their alleged cronies.
In the eight-page resolution promulgated on Jan. 23 but released to the media only yesterday, the court’s Fourth Division maintained that the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) failed to present sufficient evidence against the Marcoses and other defendants to warrant the forfeiture of assets and properties in favor of the government.
It reiterated that the documentary exhibits presented by the PCGG, which was represented in court by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), were defective.
“In the present case, the Court again emphasizes that the defects discovered in the Republic’s exhibits during their evaluation had the effect of greatly diminishing the said exhibits’ probative value,” the new ruling read.
The new ruling was penned by division chairman Associate Justice Alex Quiroz with the concurrence of Associate Justice Maria Theresa Mendoza-Arcega and the late associate justice Reynaldo Cruz, who passed away late last month.
The Fourth Division junked the case in October last year after granting the demurrer to evidence filed by co-defendants Fe Roa-Gimenez and Ignacio Gimenez. In their demurrer, the Gimenez couple prayed for the dismissal of the case because of the “lack of probative value” in the PCGG’s evidence.
Filed by PCGG in 1987, the suit sought to recover from the Marcoses, the Gimenez couple, Vilma Bautista, Gregorio Bautista and Oscar Cariño at least P29.599 million in shares of stocks and P237.772 million in real properties.
The Gimenez spouses were business associates of the Marcoses. Fe, who served as a former aide of Mrs. Marcos, was accused of funneling government funds to her foreign bank accounts, which the PCGG claimed were later disbursed among the Marcoses and other defendants in the case for their “enrichment.”
Fe and Vilma also allegedly acted as “conduits” of the Marcoses in the purchase of expensive artworks as well as properties in New York City, such as the Crown Building and the Lindenmere Estate.
Ignacio and Cariño, meanwhile, purportedly acted as “dummies, nominees or agents” of the Marcoses in several corporations.
In its motion for reconsideration, the PCGG said the court erred in its previous ruling for not giving credence to a majority of its documentary exhibits even if they were “authenticated true copies” of the originals.
The Fourth Division, however, maintained that these photocopied exhibits cannot be admitted as evidence as it would violate the Best Evidence Rule under Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
“Absent any proof that the originals of these photocopied exhibits have been lost, destroyed or cannot be produced in court, the same must be disregarded for having no probative value,” the court said.
The Fourth Division reiterated that no witness was presented by the PCGG who was privy to the contents of presented documents or who has first hand knowledge of the document’s execution. Thus, the court said, these documentary exhibits can be considered as “hearsay evidence.”
The new ruling was penned by division chairman Associate Justice Alex Quiroz with the concurrence of Associate Justice Maria Theresa Mendoza-Arcega and the late associate justice Reynaldo Cruz, who passed away late last month.
Last Feb. 13, the anti-graft court’s Second Division also upheld its earlier ruling dismissing a P102-billion forfeiture case against the Marcos family and their alleged cronies, citing the failure of the PCGG to raise any new argument in its appeal.
The case stemmed from the alleged grant of excessive loans to several firms, particularly the shipping companies owned by the late ambassador to Japan Roberto Benedicto during the martial law regime.