The Supreme Court has upheld the dismissal by the Sandiganbayan of the P1.05 billion civil forfeiture case filed against the late President Ferdinand Marcos Sr., former First Lady Imelda Marcos, and several of their cronies who allegedly acted as their dummies in acquiring expensive artworks, clothes, jewelry, and properties here and abroad, including franchises to operate tourist duty-free shops.
In a 25-page decision penned by Associate Justice Ricardo Rosario that was made public on July 19, the SC First Division dismissed for lack of merit the petition for review filed by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG).
The PCGG was seeking the reversal of the Sandiganbayan’s decision issued on September 25, 2019, dismissing the expanded complaint against the Marcoses and the Tantoco family, namely Bienvenido R. Tantoco Jr., Dominador R. Santiago, Bienvenido R. Tantoco Sr., Gliceria R. Tantoco, and Maria Lourdes Tantoco-Pineda for insufficiency of evidence.
The SC also sustained the November 20, 2019 resolution of the Sandiganbayan which denied the motion for reconsideration of the PCGG.
“In order to consider 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.”
“In the face of such gaps; petitioner’s allegations in its expanded complaint are reduced to mere speculations, insinuations, and conjectures,” the SC said.
“Thus, 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 a preponderance of evidence,” it added.
The SC said that while the PCGG submitted numerous pieces of evidence, many were excluded because they were not disclosed during the discovery process.
It noted only 11 exhibits and four testimonies were admitted as evidence.
But after evaluation by the anti-graft court of the remaining admissible evidence, it concluded that such pieces of evidence were either insufficient to prove the allegations of the expanded complaint, or were unrelated to the facts sought to be proved by the PCGG.
Apart from failing to prove the allegation that the Tantocos were dummies of the Marcoses, the High Court said the PCGG failed to prove that five percent of the franchise tax paid by the Duty Free Shops were given to Mrs. Marcos.
The PCGG filed the forfeiture case in 1987 to recover assets and properties from the Marcos family and their alleged cronies, composed of P609.27 million in shares of stocks and P443.05 million in real properties.
The expanded complaint also alleged that the Tantocos acted as dummies of the Marcoses in acquiring franchises to operate tourist duty-free shops at international airports, hotels, and commercial centers.
“Clearly, these documents are insufficient to prove that respondents concealed illegally obtained assets, or amassed ill-gotten wealth,” the SC said.
