SC upholds Sandigan decision junking Marcos ill-gotten wealth case

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed a Sandiganbayan 2012 ruling dismissing an ill-gotten wealth case filed by the Philippine government against the estate of the late president Ferdinand Marcos and several of his alleged cronies led by business tycoon Lucio Tan.

In a 62-page decision promulgated on Oct. 3 but made public on Nov. 13, the SC resolved the consolidated cases originating from the 1987 complaint for recovery and reconveyance of ill-gotten wealth filed by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) before the Sandiganbayan.

The High Court en banc upheld the Sandiganbayan’s June 2012 decision and September 2012 resolution that dismissed the PCGG’s second amended complaint for reversion, reconveyance, restitution, accounting and damages.

The Marcos Sr. estate was represented by former first lady Imelda Marcos, son and now President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and daughters Senator Imee Marcos and Irene Araneta.

Aside from Tan, also named as respondents were Don Ferry, Cesar Zalamea and Tan’s family members and business associates.

In 2012, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the complaint, saying the government failed to prove that the assets and properties were ill-gotten wealth. The Sandiganbayan also dismissed the motion for reconsideration filed by the government.

The PCGG then brought the case before the SC in four separate petitions, which were all denied.

In denying the petitions, the High Court upheld the Sandiganbayan’s findings that the pieces of evidence presented by the PCGG failed to establish that the assets and properties covered in the complaint were illegally acquired.

Among the pieces of evidence presented by the PCGG were former first lady’s amended answer, Tan’s written disclosure, Marcos Jr.’s testimony and documents found by the commission during its investigations.

Identified in the ill-gotten wealth case were Tan’s companies to which the late president Marcos Mrs. Marcos allegedly gave concessions to, or have interests or beneficial ownership in.

In its decision, the SC said that in Mrs. Marcos’ amended answer, she merely stated that Marcos Sr. had 60 percent beneficial ownership in Tan’s companies, which beneficial interests were held in trust by the business tycoon and his associates who were stockholders of the said companies.

There is nothing in the amended answer “that would even suggest that undue advantage of office, authority, influence, connections or relationship was employed to facilitate the acquisition by Marcos of his 60 percent beneficial ownership in respondent Tan’s companies,” the High Court said.

Tan’s written disclosure, which was used by the PCGG to prove the 60-40 business arrangement between the business tycoon and Marcos, including the supposed incorporations of holding companies for the latter’s benefit, meanwhile, cannot be admitted as evidence as the prosecution failed to present him as a witness to authenticate the document.

The SC said a private document should be first authenticated either by the person who executed it, the person before whom its execution was acknowledged, any person who was present and saw it executed or who after its execution, saw it and recognized the signatures or the person to whom the parties to the instruments had previously confessed execution before the document can be admitted in evidence.

In the case of Tan’s written disclosure, the business tycoon was not presented as a witness and he was not cross-examined on the statements he made in the document, saying “the hearsay rule excludes evidence that cannot be tested by cross-examination.”

The SC also said Marcos Jr.’s testimony on the purported meetings with his father and Tan on the 60-40 business arrangement was “hearsay” and it cannot be used by the prosecution to prove the truth of facts asserted.

In its decision, the SC also affirmed the 2010 Sandiganbayan ruling that dismissed the civil forfeiture case against Ferry and Zalamea, the two alleged associates of Marcos Sr.

It also dismissed the PCGG’s petition seeking the reversal of the Sandiganbayan’s resolution issued in 2011 denying its motion to admit a third amended complaint which seeks to include Philip Morris and Fortune Tobacco and several other individuals as respondents in the case.

The High Court also affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s 2011 decision to dismiss the government’s motion for voluntary inhibition of the chairman and members of Sandiganbayan’s 5th Division.