The Sandiganbayan has dismissed a civil case involving the alleged ill-gotten wealth of former President Ferdinand Marcos, his wife Imelda, and late businessmen Ricardo Silverio and Pablo Carlos Jr.
In a decision promulgated June 30, the anti-graft court’s Fourth Division dismissed the complaint for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution, and damages filed in July 1987 by the Presidential Commission on Good Governance (PCGG).
The Sandiganbayan said the government “failed to establish its case” by preponderance of evidence. It also dismissed counterclaims filed by the defendants for the same reason.
Silverio and Carlos were accused of taking “undue advantage” of their influence and connection to the Marcoses to:
- Give the Marcoses kickbacks or commissions worth “hundreds of thousands of US dollars” in exchange for contracts for Kawasaki Scrap Loaders and Toyota Rear Dump Trucks
- Receive special accommodations, privileges, and exemptions from the Central Bank for the importation of Toyota vehicles for Delta Motors Inc., among others
- Obtain huge amounts of loans, guarantees, and other types of credit accommodations under “favoured and very liberal” terms of credit from government financial institutions to finance their businesses
- Gain preferential status and treatment in the implementation of the Government's Progressive Car Manufacturing Program
- Obtain multi-million peso emergency loans from the Central Bank as additional capital infusion to the Silverio-owned Filipinas Bank
- Act as a dummy, nominee, or agent of the Marcoses in several corporations in which the couple had substantial interests.
The PCGG also questioned properties and shares of stock belonging to the defendants.
Silverio “vehemently” denied acquiring ill-gotten wealth, either singly or in collusion with the Marcoses.
Carlos also maintained that it was “crystal clear” that no oral or documentary evidence was offered against him.
The Sandiganbayan ruled that “an assiduous review of all of the testimonial and documentary evidence offered by the plaintiff showed that it failed to satisfactorily prove the specific averments in the complaint.”
The decision was penned by Associate Justice Alex Quiroz while Associate Justices Lorifel Pahimna and Edgardo Caldona concurred.—AOL, GMA News