Sandiganbayan affirms junking of P267M ill-gotten wealth case vs. Marcos couple, cronies

The Sandiganbayan has junked the Philippine government’s appeal on the dismissal of the P267 million ill-gotten wealth case against former President Ferdinand Marcos, wife Imelda, and their cronies.

In an eight-page resolution, the anti-graft court affirmed its October 2019 decision junking the ill-gotten wealth case against the Marcoses, Fe Roa Gimenez and husband Ignacio, Vilma Bautista and husband Gregorio, among others, as prosecution's evidence did not comply with the best evidence rule.

It said the evidence, collected by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), did not rise to the level of a public record stature even if these are certified as true copies by the PCGG.

“The court is not persuaded [by the government]. As held by the court in the presently assailed Resolution, pieces of evidence that were collected by the PCGG in the course of its investigation of the Marcoses’ ill-gotten wealth remain as private documents and do not become part of public records. What becomes public [record] are not the private documents themselves but rather only the recording thereof in the PCGG,” the Sandiganbayan said.

“Not having attained the status of certified public record either under Rules of Court, the photocopies that the Republic [of the Philippines] submitted amounts to a violation of the best evidence rule which requires that the original document must be produced whenever its contents are the subject of inquiry,” it added.

Likewise, the anti-graft court noted that the government, represented by PCGG, failed to show proof that the original copies of the photocopied documents presented as evidence have been lost, destroyed, or cannot be produced in court.

It also pointed out that government prosecutors did not present sufficient evidence that the Gimenez couple accumulated ill-gotten wealth because the the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth of Fe Gimenez and the sequestration or temporary seizure of their assets by the PCGG which were offered as evidence by the prosecution do not conclude that the said wealth were unlawfully acquired.

“PCGG’s power to sequester alleged ill-gotten wealth properties is a provisional remedy given to the plaintiff in order that the latter may attach the property of the adverse party as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be subsequently rendered in his favor. The fact that their assets were sequestered does not automatically mean that the same are already ill-gotten wealth,” the Sandiganbayan said.

“The court [then] finds that the Republic has failed in its burden of proving its case against the spouses Gimenez by preponderance of evidence and consequently, the present civil forfeiture case [against the Gimenez coupe and their co-accused should be dismissed. Accordingly, the Motion for Reconsideration is denied,” it added.

Under Civil Case 0007, the Gimenez couple is accused of acquiring assets with a total value of over P93 million which is way beyond their declared a total net income of only P955,273.71  from 1981 to 1985.

The same civil case also alleges the following:

•     that the Bautista couple also acquired assets grossly and manifestly disproportionate to their salaries or lawful income;
•     that Fe Gimenez and Vilma Bautista siphoned millions of dollars of government fund into several accounts in foreign countries and served as conduits of the Marcoses in the purchase of New York properties such as the Crown Building, the Lindenmere Estate, expensive works of art;
•     that the accused acted as dummies of the Marcoses in several corporations;
•     that the accused obtained construction contracts via corporations organized by them (e.g., New City Builders Inc. [NCBI]) and thus undertook such projects as the construction of the University of Life Sports Complex and dining hall, and those for the National Manpower Corporation, Human Settlements Commission, GSIS, Maharlika Livelihood.—AOL, GMA News