spot_img
29.9 C
Philippines
Saturday, April 27, 2024

Sandigan dismisses ETPI forfeiture case vs. alleged Marcos dummies

- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -

The Sandiganbayan has ruled to dismiss a 26-year-old forfeiture case against alleged dummies of President Ferdinand Marcos Sr. concerning shares of stock in the Eastern Telecommunication Philippines, Inc. (ETPI).

Under the ill-gotten wealth case docketed in 1997 as Civil Case No. 0178, the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) claimed that 3,305 shares of stock of ETPI, which belonged to President Marcos
Sr. and former first lady Imelda Marcos, were held for them by their business associates that included the so-called “Nieto group.”

The defendants included Rosario Arellano, Victoria Legarda, Angela Lobregat, Benito Nieto, Carlos Nieto, Manuel Nieto III, Ma. Rita Delos Reyes, Carmen Tuazon, Ramon Nieto, and Rafael Valdez.

In its 19-page resolution released on Jan. 10, 2024, the Sandiganbayan Fourth Division granted the demurrer to evidence — an objection by a party to a charge due to insufficiency of proof — filed by the
defendants.

“The plaintiff failed to substantiate its allegation that herein defendants Nieto group knowingly allowed themselves to be used as dummies of Manuel H. Nieto and/or spouses Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos in acquiring ETPI shares of stocks without lawful cooperation,” the resolution read.

- Advertisement -

“This Court finds that the pieces of evidence offered by plaintiff vis-à-vis the shares of stock of defendant Nieto group in ETPI are insufficient to support the allegations of the complaint for Accounting, Reconveyance, Forfeiture, Restitution and Damages,” it added.

The evidence considered included a handwritten receipt, an official receipt, a ledger, and a passbook, but none of the documents pointed to anyone in the Nieto group, according to the resolution.

The court also ruled that the lone witness, PCGG Chief Librarian Maria Lourdes Magno, was not a “credible witness” as she could only attest to the existence of the documents and how she got a hold of these, not
the content.

“The plaintiff did its best. But we discerned that their best was not good enough,” the resolution said.

- Advertisement -

LATEST NEWS

Popular Articles