MANILA, Philippines — The Sandiganbayan has junked another forfeiture case against the Marcos family and their cronies which seeks to recover P581.3 million worth of real properties and other assets allegedly illegally acquired during the martial law regime of the late former president Ferdinand Marcos Sr.
In a 45-page decision promulgated last Tuesday, the anti-graft court’s Second Division said the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), represented in the court by the Office of the Solicitor General, failed to present substantial evidence to prove that the subject properties and assets were ill-gotten.
“All told, absent sufficient evidence that may lead to the conclusion that the subject properties were indeed ill-gotten wealth, the court cannot simply order the return of the same to the national treasury,” the decision, penned by Associate Justice Arthur Malabaguio, read.
Associate Justices Oscar Herrera Jr. and Edgardo Caldona concurred with the ruling.
Filed by the PCGG in 1987, the civil suit seeks to forfeit in favor of the government P581.304 million worth of real properties and shares of stocks allegedly illegally acquired by Marcos Sr., his wife former first lady Imelda Marcos and their supposed business associates and dummies.
President Marcos and his sisters, Sen. Imee Marcos and Irene Marcos-Araneta, were impleaded in the case as substitute defendants and heirs of Marcos Sr. while their mother Imelda was among the original defendants.
Aside from the Marcos spouses, other defendants in the case were spouses Modesto Enriquez and Trinidad Diaz-Enriquez, spouses Rebecco Panlilio and Erlinda Enriquez-Panlilio, Leandro Enriquez, Roman Cruz Jr. and Don Ferry.
Docketed as Civil Case 0014, the case stemmed from the supposed acquisition of several corporations and properties by the Marcos spouses through their alleged dummies and business associates.
Based on the information of the case, the Panlilio and Enriquez spouses acted as dummies of Marcos Sr. and his wife in acquiring ownership or control of 11 corporations – Ternate Development Corp., Monte Sol Development Corp., Olas del Mar Development Corp., Philroad Construction Corp., Ocean Villas Condominium Corp., Fantasia Filipina Resort Inc., Sulo Dobbs, Food Services Inc., Philippine Village Hotel Inc., Puerto Azul Beach and Country Club Inc., Silahis International Hotel Inc. and Hotel Properties Inc.
The PCGG said the Panlilios and Enriquezes were also extended unreasonable loans and financial assistance with terms disadvantageous to the government.
In its decision, however, the Second Division said the sole witness presented by the PCGG – its records custodian Maria Lourdes Magno – does not have personal knowledge of the execution, authenticity and veracity of the documentary evidence presented during the trial, including the subject corporations’ bank records, Securities and Exchange Commission documents, deeds of sale, deeds of assignment and transfer of certificate of titles of the subject properties.
Thus, Magno’s testimony, as well as the PCGG’s documentary exhibits that she testified on, were all considered “hearsay evidence,” according to the Second Division.
“(Magno) is merely in possession of the subject documents in view of her position as records custodian of PCGG. Thus, the documents presented by the plaintiff lack basis, and witness Magno’s testimony on this point could not be taken at face value,” the Second Division said.
Furthermore, the court said the bulk of the documents presented by the PCGG were mere photocopies, a majority of which were “barely readable.”
The court added that the PCGG also failed to prove that the original documents existed or were even executed.
“The plaintiff (PCGG) did not even attempt to provide a plausible reason why the originals were not presented, neither did the plaintiff present any compelling ground why the court should admit the aforementioned documents as secondary evidence absent the testimony of the witnesses who had executed them,” the Second Division said.
Lastly, the court said none of the presented documents would show that the Marcos spouses “had any interest or control over the subject corporations.”
“Verily, nothing in these documents would show that the said corporations or the amounts paid in the stocks of the said corporations came from the government nor acquired by them (co-defendants) through illegal means or through their relationship with the Marcoses,” the court added.
The Sandiganbayan had earlier dismissed several wealth forfeiture cases against the Marcos family and their cronies, citing insufficiency of evidence and lack of credible witnesses.
Last Feb. 21, the court’s Fifth Division dismissed Civil Case 0024, which sought to recover in favor of the government several land properties in Busuanga, Palawan with total estimated area of 7,000 hectares, as well as shares in several corporations, including Lianga Bay Logging Co., Yulo King Ranch, Philippine Integrated Meat Corp. and the PIMECO Marketing Corp.
Also earlier dismissed by the Sandiganbayan were Civil Cases 0002, 0007, 0008 and 0034 which sought to recover from the Marcos family ill-gotten wealth amounting P200 billion, P267.371 million, P1.052 billion and P102 billion, respectively.
A total of 43 civil forfeiture cases were filed by the PCGG before the Sandiganbayan against the Marcos family and their cronies in 1987, a year after Marcos Sr.’s ouster through the EDSA people power revolution.
To date, more than a dozen of the cases remain pending in various divisions of the anti-graft court, while more than 20 have already been dismissed.
Three forfeiture cases, so far, have been ruled in favor of the government, including those involving the P83-billion assets acquired through the Coconut Industry Investment Fund or the coco-levy, the Marcos family’s jewelry collections with an assessed value of $110,055 to $153,089, as well as their artworks and painting collections worth $24.325 million and shares of stocks in three corporations – Eastern Telecommunications Philippines Inc., Polygon Investors and Managers Inc. and Aerocom Investors and Managers Inc.