BY RAYMOND AFRICA and PETER TABINGO
THE Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed a 2012 decision of the Sandiganbayan that dismissed an ill-gotten wealth case against the estate of former strongman Ferdinand Marcos Sr. and his alleged cronies led by business tycoon Lucio Tan.
The SC en banc upheld the anti-graft court’s June 11, 2012 decision and September 2012 resolution that dismissed the government’s amended complaint for reversion, restitution, accounting, and damages which was contained in a 62-page decision.
The estate of Marcos Sr. was represented by his wife Imelda Romualdez-Marcos, son and now President Marcos Jr., and daughters Sen. Imee Marcos, and Irene Araneta.
Aside from Tan, also named respondents were his family members, and business associates.
The ill-gotten wealth case covers Tan’s companies to which Marcos Sr. and his wife Imelda allegedly granted concessions to or have interests or beneficial ownership, among them the Shareholdings, Inc., Asia Brewery, Allied Bank, Fortune Tobacco, Maranaw Hotels, Virginia Tobacco Redrying Plant, Northern Tobacco Redrying Plant, Foremost Farms, Sipalay Trading, Himmel Industries, Grandspan Development Corp. (Grandspan), Basic Holdings Corp, Progressive Farms, Inc., Manufacturing Services and TradeCorp., Allied Leasing & Finance Corp., Jewel Holdings, Inc., Iris Holdings and Development Corp., and Virgo Holdings and Development Corp.
The SC decision penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda also threw out the State’s petition for award of damages and reimbursement for legal expenses totaling P51 billion.
A 2020 yearend report of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) pegged the value of the disputed assets at P41.06 billion consisting chiefly of shares of stocks of different companies.
The original complaint filed in 1987 named Tan, the late strongman Marcos, former First Lady Imelda, and 23 other individuals as respondents. It alleged that Tan amassed ill-gotten wealth through special privileges and arrangements extended by the Marcos government to his businesses.
A second amended complaint filed in April 1992 impleaded as additional defendants 18 corporations owned by Tan including Asia Brewery, Allied Bank, Fortune Tobacco, Maranaw Hotels, and various trading and holding firms.
Sustaining the Sandiganbayan’s pronouncements, the High Court declared that the totality of the State’s evidence presented during trial failed to demonstrate how the supposed favors or privileges extended to Tan’s companies conferred ownership to the government or qualified his properties as “ill-gotten wealth.”
“Here, even if we apply the comprehensive definition of ill-gotten wealth, the pieces of evidence relied upon by the Republic failed to establish all its elements. Notably, some of these pieces of evidence are even of doubtful admissibility,” it declared.
Specifically, the High Court found no probative value to the Amended Answer of Imelda Marcos, Lucio Tan’s Written Disclosure, President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.’s testimony before the Sandiganbayan, and the sworn affidavit of banker Rolando Gapud.
In her Amended Answer, government lawyers noted that the Marcos widow claimed ownership of 60 percent of several of Tan’s companies.
The SC said this cannot be used against the other respondents since it is merely hearsay as she was never cross-examined about the assertions made in it.
Tan’s disclosures, supposedly submitted to former PCGG chairman Jovito Salonga in 1986, was also ruled as inadmissible by the SC since it was never authenticated by Tan or any person present who can testify to its due execution.
“Since respondent Tan did not take the witness stand to testify on the contents of his Written Disclosure, the statements therein are considered hearsay and inadmissible in evidence,” it pointed out.
Both the testimony of President Marcos Jr. and the Gapud affidavit were also refused admission and given no evidentiary weight.
Although the younger Marcos testified that he was present during meetings between his father and Tan regarding the supposed Marcos interests in various businesses, the SC said the testimony was hearsay.
However, the High Court noted that President Marcos Jr. categorically denied that the subject assets were ill-gotten wealth. It added that the witness had no knowledge of the actual transactions, if any, between his father and Tan.
“After due consideration of the foregoing, it is clear that Marcos, Jr. does not have personal knowledge of the alleged 60-40 business arrangement or the share transfers between and among the various corporations. It does not appear that he was privy to any of these transactions,” the Court said.
On the other hand, Gapud’s affidavit was declared not worthy of consideration since he only gave his deposition before Salonga but the person himself was not subjected to cross-examination by the respondent’s counsel.
“Senator Salonga could not have testified on the truth of Gapud’s statements, and he could not have been cross-examined by respondents on this matter. As mentioned, Senator Salonga’s examination was not completed since he no longer appeared before the Sandiganbayan for cross-examination,” the SC pointed out.
