Gov't loses another ill-gotten wealth case vs. Marcoses

The Philippine government lost a billion-peso, ill-gotten wealth case against the late President Ferdinand Marcos and his wife, Imelda, for the second time in less than two months.

This was after the Sandiganbayan’s Second Division, due to insufficient evidence, dismissed the P1.052-billion ill-gotten wealth case against Bienvenido Tantoco Sr. and the Marcos couple, among others.

The case was in connection with the Tantoco clan's 11 real estate properties located in the Philippines, Hawaii and Rome; shares of stocks in 19 companies; cash on hand and in bank; jewelry; notes, loans and mortgages receivable; motor vehicles and three Cessna aircraft.

In a 30-page decision on Civil Case 0008 dated September 25 but only made available this week, the Sandiganbayan said the Philippine government—represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG)—failed to present enough evidence for a number of reasons namely:

• presenting only four witnesses before the anti-graft court waived further presentation of evidence in October 2006 due to the unjustified non-appearance of Philippine government’s counsel;
• the anti-graft court denying the admission of a handful pieces of evidence marked  as ”MMM" to "AAAAAAA" because the Philippine government failed to present the same in the discovery proceedings despite directives of the anti-graft court and the Supreme Court; and
• the other exhibits also denied admission by the anti-graft court for being mere photocopies which is not compliant with the Best Evidence Rule

"Nothing on record shows, and petitioner itself makes no claim, that the exhibits fall under any of the exceptions to the Best Evidence rule," the Sandiganbayan said.

"Secondary evidence of the contents of writings, [on the other hand], is admitted on the theory that the original cannot be produced by the party who offers the evidence within a reasonable time by the exercise of reasonable diligence," it added.

The court further said that, "[e]ven then, the general rule is that secondary evidence is still not admissible until the non- production of the primary evidence has been sufficiently accounted for."

Ill-gotten wealth not sourced from Duty Free

In the same civil case, government prosecutors also accused Tantoco and the others of acting as dummies of the Marcos couple in acquiring its franchise to operate Tourist Duty Free Shops, Inc. for the purpose of concealing the ownership of illegally-obtained assets, and that the defendants managed to secure the approval of then-President Marcos  to operate and manage exclusively Duty Free shops and pay only a minimum franchise tax of 7%.

Such 7% franchise tax was then allegedly shared with the Nutrition Center of the Philippines with the defendant Imelda Marcos as President, the Manila Seedling Bank Foundation with defendant Tantoco, Jr. as President, as well as with the Mount Samat Reforestation Project—all but only 2% went to the government coffers and the remaining 5% supposedly becoming Imelda’s source of petty cash since these funds were funneled to her private foundations.

The anti-graft court, however, was not convinced of these allegations. It argued that the pieces of evidence submitted by the state prosecutors such as the letters sent by the Commission on Audit to the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the Bureau of Customs only referred to tax deficiencies of Tourist Duty Free Shops, Inc.

“These letters do not show that the defendants are dummies of the defendants Marcoses in its operation of the duty-free shops. In addition, the alleged participation of the defendants in securing the issuance of the presidential decree was not established,” the Sandiganbayan said.

“Moreover, the claim that five percent of the franchise tax paid by Tourist Duty Free Shops, Inc.went to defendant Imelda Marcos has no evidentiary support. Clearly, these documents are palpably insufficient to prove that defendants are concealing illegally obtained assets or even amassing ill-gotten wealth,” it added.

Having said that, the anti-graft court said that there is no proof that defendant Tantoco acquired assets, funds and other property grossly and manifestly disproportionate to his salaries, lawful income, and income from legitimately acquired property when he served as public officer during the Marcos administration.

Likewise, the Sandiganbayan said there is not enough proof that Tantoco and the rest of the defendants acted as dummies, nominees, and/or agents of defendants Marcoses in acquiring works of clothes, jewelry, or real estate worth billions of pesos.

"Evidently, the plaintiff Republic failed to prove by preponderance of evidence that the defendants by themselves, or in conspiracy with defendants Marcoses, obtained ill-gotten wealth,” the Sandiganbayan said.

"Wherefore, in view of the foregoing, the subject Expanded Complaint for Reconveyance, Reversion, Accounting, Restitution and Damages is dismissed for insufficiency of evidence."

Before losing this P1-billion Civil Case 0008, the Philippine government also lost a P102-billion ill-gotten wealth case under Civil Case 0034 against the Marcos couple as well as 11 of their cronies due to insufficient evidence last August 5.

In the August 5 ruling, the anti-graft court said the PCGG failed to present evidence that the Marcos couple did the following:

• participated in extending loan accommodation to Aklan Bulk Carriers, Inc., Fuga Bulk Carriers, Inc., Coron Bulk Carriers, Inc., and Ecija Bulk Carriers, Inc.;
• appropriated revenues derived from the operations of RPN-9, IBC-13 and BBC-2 for their own benefit and unjust enrichment and income;
• allowed their 11 other co-accused to hold and launder purloined funds for and in their behalf prior to remittance and credit to their overseas or foreign accounts; and
• participated in the establishment of the California Overseas Bank.

The Marcos couple's daughter, Senator Imee Marcos, meanwhile, lauded the decision, although she said she has yet to read it.

“Meron ba? Actually hindi ko alam. Meron bang ganun? Babasahin ko muna ha kasi hindi ako makapag comment at hind ko alam,” Marcos said when sought for comment.

“Ang sa atin na lamang [ay] syempre nagpapasalamat tayo na sa haba ng panahon at sa dami ng kaso e wala naman palang ebidensiya so after all these years, it has taken what 30 plus odd years to prove our innocence,” she added.

Up to Calida

Malacañang said it was up to Solicitor General Jose Calida whether to appeal the decision.

“If he feels na kahit i-appeal niya ganoon pa rin ang magiging desisyon eh hindi na siguro mag-aappeal yun. Pero if he feels na mali ang evaluation ng Sandiganbayan, mag-aappeal yun,” presidential spokesperson Salvador Panelo told reporters.

Asked how Calida’s supposed fondness for the Marcoses would factor in the decision whether to appeal the ruling, Panelo said: “Si SolGen will always base his decision on the basis of the law and the evidence on hand.”

He said it should be the policy of “all governments to run after ill-gotten wealth.”

However, Panelo reminded the public that the courts rule on the basis of evidence.

“Kahit na pinakamagaling kang abogado kung kulang ebidensya mo, wala rin mangyayari,” he said. —with Amita Legaspi and Virgil Lopez/KBK/BM, GMA News