SC affirms dismissal of P1.05-B ill-gotten wealth case vs Marcos Sr., others

The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the dismissal of the forfeiture case against the late President Ferdinand Marcos Sr., his wife, Imelda, and several others, involving P1.05 billion in alleged ill-gotten wealth.

In a decision promulgated on March 29, the SC First Division denied a petition seeking to reverse the Sandiganbayan’s decision that dismissed the complaint against Marcos, Imelda, Bienvenido Tantoco Jr., Bienvenido Tantoco Sr., Gliceria Tantoco, Maria Lourdes Tantoco-Pineda, and Dominador Santiago, for insufficiency of evidence.

“While it is truly disappointing that nothing has come of this case despite the lapse of 36 years spent in litigation, the Court agrees with the Sandiganbayan that petitioner’s evidence is insufficient to support the allegations of its expanded complaint by preponderance of evidence,” the Court said through Associate Justice Ricardo Rosario.

In 1987, the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) filed a complaint for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution, and damages against the respondents.

The PCGG alleged the following:

• Marcos allegedly unlawfully withdrew funds from the National Treasury, the Central Bank (now Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas), and other local financial institutions and transferred the funds to various payees with the intention of amassing ill-gotten wealth

• The other respondents allegedly collaborated with Marcos to hide the ill-gotten assets. In particular, the Tantocos and Santiago allegedly acted as dummies in the acquisition of various real and personal properties, as well as businesses of the Marcoses. They also allegedly allowed the Duty-Free Shops to divert 5% of their franchise taxes to the Nutrition Center of the Philippines (headed by Imelda) and the Manila Seedling Bank (headed by Tantoco Sr.); obtained unlimited tax-free importation benefits; and received other unwarranted benefits for themselves and their businesses due to their close association with the Marcoses. 

The PCGG sought to forfeit all properties held by the respondents, which were alleged to have been illegally acquired, and for the respondents to pay damages in the amount of P1.05 billion.

However, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence on September 25, 2019, ruling that the PCGG failed to prove the allegations in its complaint by preponderance of evidence.

According to the SC, the PCGG made numerous specific allegations of wrongdoing on the part of the respondents but the 11 exhibits presented did not show any connection with the illegal acts stated in the complaint. 

The SC cited, among others, the letters from the Commission on Audit recommending an audit of Duty-Free Shops and studying their books of accounts, which the Court said were not sufficient to establish proof of wrongdoing.

The Court also ruled that although the promissory notes signed by the Tantocos' companies proved indebtedness, they did not establish a link to the illegal acts alleged by the PCGG.

The decision stated that the PCGG failed to prove the allegation that the Tantocos were dummies of the Marcoses.

“Neither was the claim proved that 5% of the franchise tax paid by the Duty-Free Shops went to Mrs. Marcos. Clearly, these documents were insufficient to prove that respondents concealed illegally obtained assets, or amassed ill-gotten wealth,” it added.

The SC earlier noted that the PCGG repeatedly manifested that it had no further documents to produce only to present additional exhibits later, leading the Court to exclude the exhibits that were presented late and consider them as intentional concealment of evidence.

Meanwhile, the SC stressed that the same failure to show relevance can be said about the PCGG’s four witnesses.

“In order to consider the petitioner’s evidence as sufficient to prove the allegations of its expanded complaint, the Court has to perform many leaps of logic, engage in presumptions, and create inferences based on other inferences in order to bridge the gaps in the evidence adduced,” it said.

“In the face of such gaps, petitioner’s allegations in the expanded complaint are reduced to mere speculations, insinuations, and conjectures.'' —VBL, GMA Integrated News