THE Sandiganbayan Second Division has thrown out a 36-year-old ill-gotten wealth case filed in 1987 by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) against the late strongman Ferdinand E. Marcos and his widow Imelda R. Marcos and their associates.
Based on PCGG documents, Civil Case No. 0024 involved government efforts to recover P581.304 million in assets represented by holdings in several companies.
This is the third loss for the government in ill-gotten wealth cases involving the Marcoses, their relatives and associates for this year alone.
Last February, the court also junked Civil Case No. 0024 also due to insufficiency of evidence.
That case named as respondents former Assemblyman Peter Sabido and businessmen Luis Yulo, Roberto Benedicto, and Nicolas Dehesa, together with the Marcos couple, and sought return or forfeiture in favor of the government of alleged ill-gotten wealth represented by land, assets, and shares of stocks in Lianga Bay Logging Company, Philippine Integrated Meat Corp. (Pimeco), YKR Corp. (formerly Yulo King Ranch), and Pimeco Marketing Corp.
Last June 23, the Sandiganbayan Third Division also dismissed Civil Case No. 0167 against several defendants, including former Tacloban City Mayor Alfredo Romualdez, brother of the former First Lady.
The court cited the failure of the government to pursue the resolution of the case despite having been pending for more than 30 years.
In the present case, named defendants were the Marcos couple, Modesto Enriquez, Trinidad Diaz Enriquez, Rebecco Panlilio, Erlinda Enriquez Panlilio, Leandro Enriquez, former Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) vice chairman Don Ferry, former Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) president Roman A. Cruz Jr. and Gregorio Castillo, lawyer for the Enriquez family.
In dismissing the case, the court declared that the PCGG and the Office of the Solicitor General failed to present sufficient evidence to justify forfeiture of the properties and assets identified in the complaint.
“A judicious perusal of the evidence on record shows that plaintiff failed to sufficiently prove the allegations in its Amended Complaint. In particular, plaintiff failed to establish that the subject properties were ‘ill-gotten’,” the Sandiganbayan said.
The court stressed that the rules required that the PCGG-OSG prove that the disputed properties were either from the government or were acquired by the defendants through illegal means or by taking advantage of their close relationship with the Marcoses.
In its presentation, the government called only one witness to testify — PCGG records custodian Maria Lourdes Magno.
While the witness has been with the commission since 1992, she could only attest that the documents she was asked to identify were either originals, certified true copies, or photocopies and that they were on file with the PCGG.
Government lawyers stipulated that she had no participation in the preparation of any of the exhibits, was not a signatory in any of them, and had no personal knowledge as to the veracity of the contents of the papers.
Even without any of the respondents presenting their own evidence, the court said there was no way the government would have won the case due to the absence of competent evidence to back its allegations.
“Witness Magno’s testimony falls within the category of hearsay evidence. Contrary to plaintiff’s claim, witness Magno had no personal inkling as to the authenticity and due execution of the subject documents. (She) did not personally witness the perfection of the alleged documents involving the defendants,” the Sandiganbayan pointed out.
Among the companies dragged into the case were Fantasia Filipina Resorts Inc. Hotel Properties Inc., Monte Sol Development Corp., Ocean Villas Condominium Corp., Olas del Mar Development Corp., Philippine Village Hotel, Philroad Construction Corp., Puerto Azul Beach and Country Club Inc., Silahis International Hotel, Silo-Dobbs Food Services Inc. and Ternate Development Corp.
Even the bulk of the documentary evidence adduced by the government could not be given much weight as the Sandiganbayan noted that they were merely photocopies and were barely readable.
Moreover, the PCGG offered no justification why only photocopies were presented in court.
“Wherefore, premises considered, the Complaint… is hereby dismissed for failure of the plaintiff to prove its allegations by preponderance of evidence,” the Sandiganbayan said.
