The Sandiganbayan has denied the petition of government prosecutors to present a new witness in the ill-gotten wealth case against personalities being linked to the late President Ferdinand Marcos Sr. and his wife Imelda due to lack of merit.
In a seven-page resolution on Civil Case 0178 involving Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (ETPI) shares, the anti-graft court said the prosecution’s bid to present a new witness shows a lack of competence in pursuing the case.
In March 2020, court records also revealed that the Office of the Solicitor General, then led by Jose Calida, had left Civil Case 0178 unattended for the previous 14 months.
Civil Case 0178 alleges that shares of the Marcos couple in ETPI were registered to the following individuals: Rosario Arellano, Victoria Legarda, Angela Lobregat, Pablo Lobregat (in trust for Rafael Valdez),
Benito Nieto, Carlos Nieto, Manuel Nieto III, Ramon Nieto, Ma. Rita Delos Reyes, Carmen Tuazon, and Rafael Valdez; To Andres Africa (in trust for Rosario Songco), Lourdes Africa (in trust for Nathalie Africa, Jose Enrique Africa, and Paul Delfin Africa), Victor Africa, Juan De Ocampo (in trust for Rosario Songco), Raquel Dinglasan, Evelyn Romero, and Rosario Songco.
Government prosecutors, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General and the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), had wanted to replace its nine witnesses with an unnamed officer of the Sandiganbayan Third Division due to the following circumstances:
Witnesses Manuel Nieto Jr. and Rolando Gapud have already passed away;
No information was gathered as to the current addresses of Severino Buan, Jr., Maurice Bane, and Potenciano Roque despite assistance from other government agencies;
PCGG was able to obtain information on the current residence of witnesses Evelyn Singson and Apolinario Medina, but the PCGG investigating team was refused entry into the subdivision where Evelyn Singson resides, while Medina appears not to be residing in his known address;
Witness Caesar Parlade declined to be a witness in the instant case, as he had already testified in Civil Case 0009, and is abroad with prosecutors unsure of his date of return.
The Sandiganbayan upheld its December 2019 decision on Civil Case 0009 in September 2020.
“This Court finds these circumstances or justifications insufficient to support the plaintiff’s Motion,” the Sandiganbayan said in Civil Case 0178.
“As correctly pointed out by the defendants, it is the plaintiff’s duty to diligently pursue the case and to secure its witnesses. Its inability to locate its witnesses now, after a period of 26 years, demonstrates its complacent attitude or lack of due diligence in pursuing the present case,” it added.
“In fact, even the plaintiff admitted in its Motion that the PCGG is still in the process of searching the whereabouts of the proposed witnesses as of March 20, 2023, or during the initial presentation of plaintiff’s evidence.”
The Sandiganbayan also noted that while the prosecution only intends to present the unnamed Sandiganbayan Third Division employee as a witness to establish that Parlade, Roque, Buan Jr., and Medina had testified in Civil Case 0009 and to identify the transcript of notes (TSNs) of their testimonies, the anti-graft court viewed this as an intention to adopt their testimonies and exhibits to form part of the records of Civil Case 0178.
The anti-graft court said this would be a violation of the defendants’ right to due process because Civil Case 0178 defendants were not charged in Civil Case 0009. As such, Civil Case 0178 defendants were not able to cross-examine the said nine prosecution’s witnesses in Civil Case 0009.
“To permit the plaintiff now to introduce the testimonies of Caesar Parlade, Potenciano Roque, Severino Buan, Jr., and Apolinario Medina in Civil Case 0009 through mere identification of their TSNs by an officer of the Third Division would unduly deprive herein defendants their right to be confronted at the trial by, and to cross-examine, the witnesses against them,” the Sandiganbayan said.
“Wherefore, this Court resolves to deny plaintiff’s (government’s) Motion For Leave Of Court To Present Other Witness And Documents for lack of merit,” it added.
The Sandiganbayan had already decided on Civil Case 0009 on December
2019 by ordering Jose Africa and Manuel Nieto Jr. to return their ETPI shares, as well as at least P68 million worth of shares of those of Polygon Investors and Managers, Inc. and Aerocom Investors and Managers, Inc., to the government.
The shareholders of the Polygon Investors and Managers, Inc. and Aerocom Investors and Managers, Inc., as stated in the December 2019 Sandiganbayan ruling, include Civil Case 0178 defendants Arellano, Legarda, Lobregat, Benito Nieto, Carlos Nieto, Manuel Nieto, delos Reyes, Tuason, and Nieto Jr.