THE Sandiganbayan special anti-graft court has granted the motion filed by President Marcos Jr. and former First Lady Imelda Marcos on behalf of the Marcos estate seeking dismissal of a 37-year-old ill-gotten wealth case.
Associate Justice Geraldine Faith A. Econg penned the 30-page resolution dated October 4, 2024 that upheld the argument of the Marcos widow that there was a violation of her right to speedy disposition of cases due to the lengthy delay in the progress of Civil Case No. 0006.
Associate Justices Edgardo M. Caldona and Arthur O. Malabaguio concurred.
The case, originally filed by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) on July 21, 1987, named the Marcos couple and Roman Cruz, who served as former president of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), the Philippine Airlines, and the Manila Hotel.
The PCGG sought the forfeiture of real estate properties valued at least P276.69 million, including two lots and two condominium units in Baguio City, a residential building in Makati City, a parcel of land and six condominium units in California, USA, and a residential lot in the city of Manila.
It also asked the court for award of P50 billion in moral damages and P1 billion in exemplary damages.
The Marcos couple was declared in default in 1989 for failing to file their answer to the lawsuit, but this was set aside in 1992 after the court granted a request of Mrs. Marcos to be given a chance to contest the allegations.
All the defendants filed their pre-trial briefs in September 1995 and Mrs. Marcos asked for P20 billion moral and exemplary damages and P10 million in attorney’s fees.
Mrs. Marcos said because of the disinterest shown by government lawyers in pursuing the case, their right to a fair trial has been prejudiced since many of the witnesses they could have called to testify in their defense are no longer around while documents may no longer be located.
She added that her health has already declined affecting her ability to testify in her own defense.
Government lawyers did not oppose the defendants’ motion, noting that “there are no more allegations against the Estate of the late Ferdinand Marcos” since the PCGG case against the Estate had already been excluded as of October 12, 2012, citing the lack of definitive information on the allegation that Marcos used Cruz as a dummy or why he is perceived as such.
In its ruling, the Sandiganbayan Second Division said: “Scrutiny of the chronology of events in this case shows a plethora of motions for extension filed due to unpreparedness or lack of witnesses/documentary evidence, aside from pending incidents, and scheduled pre-trial cancellations contributing to inordinate delay.”
It added that there was a clear violation of the defendants’ right to speedy disposition of cases as the case records showed the plaintiff’s “lack of diligence in handling the cases.”
The court likewise sustained Mrs. Marcos on the issue of prejudice on their ability to defend themselves attributable to the decades without any progress to the case.
It noted that the Marcos widow is now 95 years old so that her ability to appear in court and recall events to argue her case “has assuredly declined.”
“They can no longer be afforded a fair trial since the witnesses may have already died and the documentary evidence may no longer be located after more than 30 years from the filing of the complaint,” the court pointed out.
