Supreme Court shoots down challenge vs. Imelda Marcos acquittal

The Supreme Court (SC) has shot down a challenge to former First Lady and incumbent Ilocos Norte Representative Imelda Marcos' acquittal for the crime of illegally stashing millions of dollars in Swiss bank accounts.

This came about as the high court's Third Division affirmed rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) that denied the late former solicitor general Francisco Chavez's petition against a Manila judge's refusal to inhibit from his original case, filed in 1991.

In 2007, Judge Silvino Pampilo Jr. of the Manila Regional Trial Court rejected Chavez's motion for inhibition, which accused him of bias largely on the basis of how he scheduled Chavez's testimony.

Chavez questioned this before the CA, won a writ of preliminary injunction, but eventually lost twice, prompting him to bring the case before the SC.

In a recently obtained June decision, the SC sided with Pampilo, saying there was "no concrete proof" of the judge's "personal interest" in the case.

"There was nothing remarkable about the denial of the Motion to Inhibit. It was not hasty, and whether to deny it orally in court is the prerogative of the judge, who could have decided it as as soon as its factual basis had been clearly laid," said the decision penned by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen.

"The claim that (Chavez's) testimony would have saved the prosecution's case is baseless," it added.

Pampilo cleared Marcos and Hector Rivera of charges on ground of reasonable doubt in 2008, citing "various failures" of the prosecution.

The judge found the government's evidence wanting and based on hearsay, noting that despite the case being anchored on documents from Swiss authorities, only two witnesses with no personal knowledge of the papers were presented.

"Thus, the Regional Trial Court found that the prosecution failed to present competent proof of the alleged offense and of the conspiracy among the accused," the SC said.

Chavez challenged the acquittal in his motion for reconsideration in the inhibition case, but the CA said it was improper as the matter was not covered by his original petition.

The SC also decided that Chavez failed to provide legal basis to support his argument that Pampilo violated the CA-issued injunction by promulgating the ruling that acquitted Marcos.

The CA decision that dealt Chavez a defeat in his inhibition plea "carried with it a contrary order dissolving the injunction," the SC said, making his claim of a violation "frivolous, if not misleading."

'Prosecution could have done better'

Leonen's ponencia faulted the government for what he observed was its "lackadaisical" resolve to prosecute Marcos.

"The lower court's liberality in granting the various continuances does not seem to have been met by the presentation of evidence with a depth and quality that would have shown the diligence and seriousness of the prosecution," the ruling said.

It reminded government prosecutors that their work is not merely to announce case filings, but to "professionally present the evidence marshaled through painstaking and fastidious investigation."

It said "fatal errors" -- such as a "habit of postponements and a lack of preparation" -- cannot be glossed over by appeals that reach even the SC, which he called a "fool's strategy."

"Apathetic prosecution allows impunity. It is difficult as enough as it is to discover wrongdoing, protect key witnesses, preserve the evidence, and guard against the machinations of powerful and moneyed individuals," the ruling stated.

"Prosecutors must not only be courageous but must also show their dedication ; to public interest through their competence. Otherwise, the system will invite suspicion that there had been unholy collusion." — RSJ, GMA News