The Sandiganbayan’s Second Division has dismissed another suit, Civil Case 0014 by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) against former President Ferdinand Marcos Sr., his wife Imelda, as well as their alleged cronies who were included in the complaint.
In a decision promulgated on Tuesday, June 27, the antigraft court junked the complaint for failure of the PCGG to prove its allegations.
The court noted that the writs of sequestration issued by complainant PCGG against the properties cited in the case “do not, by themselves, prove that the properties are ill-gotten.”
“Nothing on the face of these documents shows that defendants Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos had any interest or control over the subject corporations,” the court said in the decision written by Associate Justice Arthur Malabaguio.
Division chairman Associate Justice Oscar Herrera and Associate Justice Edgardo Caldona agreed with Malabaguio’s findings.
Civil Case 0014, which was filed on July 22, 1987, by the Cory Aquino-era PCGG sought the forfeiture and reconveyance of assets and properties owned by alleged dummies of the former President and first lady, including Philippine Village Hotel, Puerto Azul Beach and
Country Club, Ternate Development Corporation, Fantasia Filipina Resorts, Inc. Ocean Villas Condominium Corporation, and Silahis International Hotel.
Since the main defendants—Ferdinand Marcos Sr.; Modesto and Trinidad Enriquez; and Rebecco Panlilio—died during the pendency of the case, they were substituted by their heirs in the case, including President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., Maria Imelda Marcos-Manotoc and Irene Marcos-Araneta.
In 2009, the PCGG estimated that the properties included in Civil Case 0014 amount to P581 million.
The court noted in its decision that to prove the illegal acquisition of the defendants of the properties, the PCGG relied on the affidavit of a single witness, its own records custodian, Maria Lourdes Magno.
The court also noted that Magno had no participation in the preparation of the exhibits, was not a signatory to the documents and had no personal knowledge of the veracity of the contents of the documents.
