Sandiganbayan rejects bid of alleged Marcos dummies to halt ill-gotten wealth trial

The Sandiganbayan has denied the plea of the alleged dummies of former President Ferdinand Marcos and his wife Imelda to suspend their trial for an ill-gotten wealth case involving their Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (ETPI) shares.

The anti-graft court said that the trial for Civil Case 0178, which seeks to recover 3,305 shares of stock in the ETPI from individuals who are allegedly holding such shares for the Marcos couple, will proceed in the absence of a stay order from the Supreme Court (SC).

The defendants in Civil Case 0178 who sought the suspension of the trial include Rosario  Arellano, Victoria Legarda, Angela Lobregat, Benito Nieto, Carlos Nieto, Manuel Nieto III,  Ma. Rita Delos Reyes, Carmen Tuazon, Ramon Nieto Jr. (the legal  representative of the deceased Ramon Nieto), Benigno Manuel Valdes (the legal representative of Rafael Valdez), and Victor Africa. 

These defendants, in their manifestation with motion for suspension, cited a petition pending before the SC challenging the 2019 decision of the Sandiganbayan Third Division in Civil Case 0009 that there is a preponderance of evidence that the ETPI shares of the defendant-movants are ill-gotten wealth of the late dictator. 

In Civil Case 0178, the defendants who are seeking suspension of the trial are also implicated in Civil Case 0009.

"If it is correct that the Third Division of this Court has committed palpable mistake in not affording due process to movants/defendants in relation to the decision in Civil Case No. 0009, movants should have applied for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to arrest the happening of possible grave injury. However, records revealed that movants did not even apply for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction when they filed the petition for review on certiorari [before the Supreme Court]," the Sandiganbayan Fourth Division said in a resolution dated May 23.

"The existence of an urgent necessity for the writ in order to prevent serious damage is belied by their own omission to request the Supreme Court for the same. Thus, without any TRO or writ of preliminary injunction from the Supreme Court ordering this Court to suspend the proceeding in this case, we do not have any other option but to deny the motion for suspension on account of pendency of the petition for review," it added.

The anti-graft court pointed out that the case was filed "pursuant to the instruction of the Supreme Court to implead the registered owners of those shares in a formal complaint."

It also cited Section 7, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court which states that the "public respondent shall proceed with the principal case within 10 days from the filing of a petition for certiorari with a higher court or tribunal, absent a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, or upon its expiration."

The same rule provides that "failure of the public respondent to proceed with the principal case may be a ground for an administrative charge."

"In the absence of preponderant legal principle applicable in this case, we are constrained to apply the clear and unmistakable provision of the Rules of Court that carries with it punitive administrative sanction in case of non-compliance," the resolution stated.

"Wherefore, the instant motion for suspension is hereby denied for lack of merit." —VBL, GMA News