Imelda Marcos acquitted in 32 dollar salting cases

MANILA, Philippines - A Manila regional trial court on Monday acquitted former First Lady Imelda Marcos in 32 counts of dollar salting cases filed against her 16 years ago, radio dzBB reported. The cases involve the $683-million Marcos fund found in several Swiss bank accounts. The decision was penned by Judge Silvino Pampilo who said that the government - through the Presidential Commission on Good Government - failed to prove its allegation of conspiracy among the respondents in hiding the deposits in several banks in Switzerland using dummy corporations. "Like the crime itself, conspiracy must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In these cases, no competent proof was adduced to prove the charge of conspiracy. The prosecution was not even able to prove the acts complained of as constituting the offense," said the lower court. The RTC did not give weight to the documentary evidence presented by the PCGG that Benedicto, a known crony of the Marcoses, invested in the Philippine-issued dollar-denominated treasury notes. The Court said that there was no clear indication that Benedicto did the transaction for Marcos. Neither did the prosecution submit any documentary proof that the three Swiss banks where the alleged dollar remittances emanated - Bank Hofmann, Swiss Bank Corporation (SBC) and Banque de Paris et des Pays-Bas (Paribas) - held the dollar notes for accused Marcos. "This Court cannot in all conscience convict the accused on the basis of mere hearsay and on the basis of documents which were not authenticated and proved in the proper manner," said Pampilo. Aside from former solicitor general Francisco Chavez - who had earlier asked the Court of Appeals to inhibit Pampilo from the case because of perceived bias in favor of the respondents Marcos, the late Ambassador Roberto Benedicto and banker Hector Rivera - the PCGG's other witness was Assistant Solgen and PCGG Commissioner Caesario del Rosario. Del Rosario had identified the Swiss bank documents as those which were personally received by Chavez and referred to him for study and evaluation. All the cases - filed in 1991 and consolidated into three subcases (Criminal Case nos. 91-101732 to 91-101739; case nos. 91-101879 to 91-101883; and 91-101884 to 91-101892) - account for 70 percent of all pending civil and criminal suits against the Marcoses. All were based on violations of Central Bank Foreign Exchange Restrictions and CB Circular 960 which govern the opening and maintaining of huge amounts of foreign exchange accounts abroad. In his 44-page decision, Pampilo dismissed as hearsay the voluminous documentary evidence and testimony of two government witnesses, Chavez and del Rosario. He ruled in favor of the single evidence presented by defense counsel Robert Sison. Sison had waived his clients' right to cross-examine the government's two witnesses and presented no witnesses for the defense. He also offered only the transcript of stenographic notes taken on November 28, 2006 during a hearing of these cases in the Manila court. Reading a portion of the memorandum written by del Rosario in 1994 to then Presidential Chief Legal Counsel Antonio Carpio, now a justice of the SC, Sison quoted del Rosario's "heart-to-heart" talk with Zurich District Attorney Peter Cosandey. Consandey had apparently told Carpio that the chances of the Philippine government recovering the Marcos frozen assets is so nil that it would take 50 years "and still you have no assurance that your government would get the assets." 1983 transactions Records show that in September 1983, the Central Bank issued dollar-denominated treasury notes in the total amount of $125 million. Out of this, $75 million were purchased by the three Swiss banks allegedly holding the hidden wealth of then President Ferdinand Marcos and his wife Imelda. The purchases were recorded in the BSP under the name of Marcos' alleged frontman, Benedicto. Of the $75 million, $50 million came from Bank Hofmann, $10 million from the SBC and $15 million from Banque Paribas. The purchases by Hofmann and SBC were made through the accounts owned by foundations called Avertina, Maler I and Maler II, which were owned by the Marcoses. Banque Paribas' purchase was arranged by the Marcoses' attorney-in-fact Stephane Cattaui through Traders Royal Bank, which acted as custodian of the securities. The contact person at TRB was Rivera, vice president of the bank's Trust Department. The dollar T-notes subsequently earned a total of $20.572 million from 1984 to 1987, which were neither reported nor registered with the appropriate CB department, in violation of Section 10 of the CB Circular. These transactions only came to light after the 1986 EDSA revolution when documents relating to the Marcoses' Swiss bank accounts and dollar T-note purchases were found in Malacanang. The Aquino administration, represented by then Solicitor General Sedfrey Ordonez lost no time in filing an application with the Swiss authorities for mutual assistance in the matter of the Marcos dollar deposits in Switzerland. The request for assistance was eventually granted by Cosenday, who then issued a freeze order on all the Swiss banks where the Marcoses and their foundations had accounts. On December 21, 1990, the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland rendered twin decisions sustaining the position of the Philippine government and giving it a one-year deadline to file the appropriate cases against the Marcoses and cronies, otherwise the freeze order would be lifted. Chavez, who initiated the filing of civil and criminal case, testified as to the veracity of the documents that they culled from the Swiss banks. In Manila However, the Manila court ruled that the alleged bank documents attached by the various Swiss bankers were "not official acts of a sovereign authority, nor were they notarized." The Court further said that these documents were not public records that are kept in the Philippines required by law to be entered. Citing Section 20 of the Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, "before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either by anyone who saw the document executed or written, or by evidence of the genuineness of teh signature or handwriting of the maker." "The prosecution miserably failed to present any witness who could have been a party to or at least have seen the execution of the alleged Swiss bank documents," Pampilo said. Evan assuming that the said bank officers could not possibly make the trip to the Philippines, there was no reason why their testimonies could not have been taken in Switzerland by deposition, the Court further said. - GMANews.TV