SC upholds Sandigan 2012 decision junking ill-gotten wealth case vs. Marcos estate

The Supreme Court has affirmed a Sandiganbayan 2012 decision that dismissed an ill-gotten wealth case against the estate of former President Ferdinand Marcos Sr. and others.

In a 62-page decision, the SC En Banc upheld the Sandiganbayan’s June 2012 decision and September 2012 resolution that dismissed the government’s second amended complaint for reversion, reconveyance, restitution, accounting, and damages.

The estate of Marcos Sr. was represented by his wife, former First Lady Imelda Marcos, and their children Senator Imee Marcos, President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr, and Irene Marcos-Araneta.

“Consequently, the petition for review on certiorari of the Republic of the Philippines is denied for lack of merit,” the SC said.  

The Republic, through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), in 1987 filed a complaint before the Sandiganbayan against Marcos Sr., former First Lady Imelda Marcos, Lucio Tan, Don Ferry, and 22 others for alleged ill-gotten wealth.

In 2012, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the complaint, saying the Republic failed to discharge its burden to prove that the assets and properties were ill-gotten wealth because it was not shown that the same originated from government sources.

Meanwhile, the Sandiganbayan in September 2012 dismissed the motion for reconsideration filed by the Republic.

In affirming the decision, the Supreme Court said the evidence used by the Republic established the manner in which the respondents allegedly acquired ill-gotten wealth.

The Court said the evidence presented included Imelda’s amended answer, Tan’s written disclosure, Marcos Jr.’s testimony, and Rolando Gapud’s affidavit.

“It was not shown through these pieces of evidence, if and how respondents took undue advantage of their office, authority, influence, connections, or relationship,” it said.

According to the court, for properties to be considered ill-gotten wealth, they must have originated from the government and they must have been taken through illegal means.

In Imelda’s amended answer, the Republic said she appeared to have alleged that Marcos had 60% beneficial ownership of several of Tan’s companies. It said this supported the theory that Marcos concealed ill-gotten wealth.

However, the respondents claimed that the amended answer contradicted the theory as the allegation that he owned 60% is inconsistent with the allegation that the ill-gotten wealth was resource of the government.

“Considering that the Amended Answer was never admitted as a pleading, it cannot be considered as a judicial admission,” the SC said.

“Further, the Amended Answer should not prejudice the other respondents under the res inter alias acta rule, which provides that ‘[a] party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration or omission of another. …’ The allegations found in the Amended Answer is considered hearsay as against the other respondents,” it later added.

Meanwhile, the Court said the Republic relied on Tan’s written disclosure to prove the alleged arrangement between him and Marcos, including the supposed incorporation of holding companies for Marcos’ benefit and the supposed delivery of deeds of trust.

Former Senator Jovito Salonga had testified and attested the document’s genuineness and due execution. However, the Court said that Tan’s argument that the testimony is worthless as his direct examination was not completed must be sustained.

“The Written Disclosure is inadmissible in evidence. Even assuming otherwise, the Written Disclosure is still insufficient to prove the Republic's claims,” it said.

The Court said Tan was not presented as a witness despite being the one who executed the document. It said the hearsay rule excludes evidence that cannot be tested by cross-examination.

“Since respondent Tan did not take the witness stand to testify on the contents of his Written Disclosure, the statements therein are considered hearsay and inadmissible in evidence,” the court said.

According to the Court, the Republic also relied on the testimony of Bongbong Marcos. However, it said that after consideration, Marcos does not have personal knowledge of the alleged business arrangement or the share transfers between corporations.

“Marcos, Jr. has no personal knowledge of the details of the arrangement and the manner of the transfers of shares since he was not privy to said transactions,” it said.

“Thus, the Court finds that Marcos, Jr.'s testimony is hearsay and may not be used to prove the truth of the facts asserted,” it added.

Further, the Court said that allegations in civil cases filed to recover unlawfully acquired property or ill-gotten wealth must be proven through preponderance of evidence.

However, it said the Republic was unable to prove that the properties were obtained through undue advantage.

“Considering the foregoing, the petition in [the case] should also be denied for the Republic's failure to prove the third and fourth elements of ill-gotten wealth,” the court said.

Other respondents in the case were

1. Lucio Tan
2. Imelda Marcos
3. Carmen Khao Tan
4. Florencio Santos
5. Natividad Santos
6. Domingo Chua
7. Tan Hui Nee
8. Mariano Tan Eng Lian
9. the estate of Benito Tan Kee Hiong
10. Florencio Santos Jr.
11. Harry Tan
12. Tan Eng Chan
13. Chung Poe Kee
14. Mariano Khoo
15. Manuel Khoo
16. Miguel Khoo
17. Jamie Khoo
18. Elizabeth Khoo
19. Celso Ranola
20. William Wong
21. Ernesto Lim
22. Benjamin Albacita
23. Don Ferry
24. Willy Co
25. Federico Moreno
26. Panfilo Domingo
27. Heirs of Gregorio Licaros
28. Cesar Zalamea

Eighteen corporations were also named as respondents. —KG, GMA Integrated News