Imelda sis, hubby ask to be dropped from ill-gotten wealth case

MANILA, Philippines - The youngest sister of former First Lady Imelda Romualdez-Marcos and her husband have asked the Sandiganbayan to drop their names as defendants in a 21-year-old case which has not been prosecuted. The appeal was made by Conchita Romualdez-Yap and her husband Brig. Gen. (ret.) Edon Yap. It was made in connection with Civil Case no. 0035 where they have been named defendants. In their 31-page motion, the Yap couple pointed out that the original complaint was filed by the Presidential Commission on Good Government on July 31, 1987. Since then, the PCGG amended the complaint three times – on August 20, 1987; on February 9, 1988; and again on October 15, 2001. Government sought recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth amassed by the defendants through ‘misappropriation and theft of public funds, plunder of the nation's wealth, extortion, blackmail, bribery, embezzlement and other acts of corruption, betrayal of public trust and brazen abuse of power.’ It also sought award of P50 billion in damages and P1 billion in reimbursement of legal expenses. Former Ambassador Benjamin ‘Kokoy’ Romualdez, Juliette Gomez-Romualdez, former President Ferdinand Marcos and Mrs. Marcos were named defendants in the case along with 41 others. They filed their Answers to the complaint on April 8, 1988 wherein they interposed their counter-claims against the government. Government lawyers moved for the dismissal of the defendants’ counter-claim on April 13, 1988. This was however junked by the Sandiganbayan three months later. The graft court held that, at the time, it was still premature to rule on the propriety of the defendants’ counterclaim because the presentation of evidence by either side has not even started. On Tuesday, defense lawyers pointed out that the government’s motion of April 13, 1988 was the last pleading filed in the case. “Since the filing of said last pleading, plaintiff (Republic of the Philippines) has not taken any step to have the case tried. Indeed, the case has not even undergone pre-trial," they noted. The defendants argued that the long delay in the proceedings violated not only their right to due process but also their right to speedy disposition of a case. Their lawyers cited the Supreme Court pronouncements in the case of Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan which dismissed the case after ‘only’ a three-year delay in terminating the preliminary investigation and filing of the information while in the case of Angchangco Jr. vs. Ombudsman, the case was thrown out after Ombudsman failed to resolve the cirminal complaint against the petitioner even after six years. “In the instant case, plaintiff has made no effort to prosecute the action. Plaintiff, in disregard of its clear duty under the rules, has not moved that this case be set for pre-trial,.. (its) failure to prosecute the instant action can not be more blatant," the defense lawyers stressed. - GMANews.TV