MANILA, Philippines – A Manila court acquitted yesterday former first lady Imelda Romualdez-Marcos of 32 counts of illegally transferring wealth abroad following a trial that lasted 17 years.
In his decision, Judge Silvino Pampilo Jr. of the Manila Regional Trial Court said the government failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the 78-year-old widow of President Ferdinand Marcos had stashed away $863 million in Swiss Bank accounts when they were in power.
“The prosecution presented inadmissible evidence,” Pampilo said in a telephone interview.
“After a careful, judicious scrutiny of the records and the evidence in these cases, this Court finds that the State was not able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the State’s evidence having been based on hearsay.”
Marcos was acquitted only on the criminal case, and the forfeiture proceedings for the funds are separate and being handled by the Sandiganbayan, Pampilo clarified.
After hearing the verdict, a teary-eyed Mrs. Marcos, in an olive green dress with matching jewelry, patted the backs of her two lawyers and then shook their hands.
“I thank the Lord of relieving me of 32 cases that will subtract from the 901 cases filed by (former President Corazon) ‘Cory’ Aquino against the Marcoses,” she told reporters.
“I do hope that this will subtract from the 901 cases while I am still alive so that I could fulfill my dream for my country and my people, for truth for the Marcoses would be justice for the Filipino.”
Mrs. Marcos, along with Roberto Benedicto – who has passed away – and Hector Rivera were accused of unlawfully opening 11 dollar accounts in Switzerland under the names of 10 foundations linked to the Marcos family to hide alleged ill-gotten wealth.
The money has been frozen by the government and is being held in escrow at the Philippine National Bank.
Former solicitor general Francisco Chavez, who initiated the prosecution of Mrs. Marcos, said he would appeal to the Supreme Court.
“Judge Pampilo and the Marcoses might think that this is the end of the game, but they are mistaken,” he said.
“I will go to the SC for the nullification of the acquittal... It’s okay she is acquitted if the fight was fair, but it was not.”
The Supreme Court has remanded to the regional trial court two cases in which Mrs. Marcos had been acquitted, he added.
Chavez said a case he filed last year to prevent Pampilo from handing down his decision on the Marcos case was dismissed by the Court of Appeals last week.
“The Court of Appeals (CA) ruling on the petition had not yet been ruled with finality because there is still a 15-day period wherein I could file a motion for reconsideration,” he said.
The PCGG could be “in cahoots” with the Marcoses because it allegedly submitted evidence not related to the case to weaken the prosecution, Chavez said.
No-show in Tan trial
Mrs. Marcos failed yesterday to appear during the resumption of taipan Lucio Tan’s trial on ill-gotten wealth.
The former first lady did not receive the Sandiganbayan’s subpoena because the Office of the Solicitor General gave the anti-graft court a wrong address, according to the Presidential Commission on Good Government.
PCGG lawyer Catalino Generillo Jr. said the Sandiganbayan sheriff’s office was given the address of the Marcos family’s old house in San Juan, not the present residence of Marcos in Makati.
The subpoena for Mrs. Marcos was sent to her old address in San Juan because that was the address provided to them by the OSG and the PCGG, according to personnel of the sheriff’s office.
Mrs. Marcos was summoned by the court to back the government’s claim that 60 percent of Tan’s properties were owned by the Marcos estate.
Mrs. Marcos and her son, Ilocos Norte Rep. Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos, insist that a bigger chunk of Tan’s assets was entrusted to him by the late President Marcos, who was a close ally and a business associate.
The Sandiganbayan had ordered Mrs. Marcos to present original documents, including deeds of sale and deeds of assignments, as proof their claim.
The government said Tan was used by President Marcos as a dummy to conceal his ill-gotten wealth stolen from the national treasury.
The Marcoses claim shares in six corporations of Tan – Foremost Farms, Silangan Holdings Inc., Asia Brewery, Fortune Tobacco, Himmel Industries and Granspan Development Corp.
In an earlier testimony, Rep. Marcos told the court he has personal knowledge of his father’s ownership of Tan’s properties.
The shares of stock being claimed by the government from Tan were not stolen, he added.
Rep. Marcos said he was aware that the money used to purchase the shares of stock was stolen from the government.
Tan deposited millions in the account of his father with Security Bank, he added.
Rep. Marcos had already terminated his testimony and identification of pertinent documents to show proof of his father’s shares in six of Tan’s companies.
Meanwhile, Generillo said yesterday he will present today Edgar Camacho from the National Archives to testify on the existence of the documents like the deeds of sale and deeds of assignment testified to by congressman Marcos.
“These are notarized documents. Under the law, if these are notarized, the notary public would send these to the National Archives. And the documents testified to by Bongbong Marcos are certified copies issued by the National Archives,” he said.
‘Hard to pin down Marcoses’
It is hard for government prosecutors to pin down the Marcoses on charges of ill-gotten wealth, according to the PCGG.
PCGG Commissioner for Litigation Narciso Nario, a retired Sandiganbayan associate justice, said prosecuting the Marcos family was difficult considering that prosecutors had to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
“These are criminal cases,” he said.
“The mandate of the PCGG is to recover ill-gotten wealth, not to prosecute criminal cases. The principal prosecutor is the Department of Justice’s Office of the Public Prosecutor... That is the delineation of functions.”
Nario said that the PCGG’s task of recovering ill-gotten wealth was relatively easier.
“We (PCGG) collaborate with them with the purpose of providing them (government prosecutors) evidence,” he said.
“They (government prosecutors) must have solid evidence to impose the penalty or to prove the guilt of the accused.”
Nario said government prosecutors also have to deal with the problem of having mostly photocopies of original documents for their evidence.
“It depends on the evidence,” he said.
“In many of the cases, the reason why we encountered defeat is probably because of our evidence, because the evidence available to us are mostly photocopies of the original documents.
“Under the law, if you present photocopies, these are inadmissible as evidence.”
The PCGG needs only to show a preponderance of evidence to recover ill-gotten wealth, Nario said. – With Sandy Araneta, Rainier Allan Ronda, Christina Mendez