Manila Bulletin
Philippines
YEAR-ENDER: Marcos family scores major victories, suffer minor losses in 2019
Philippines
YEAR-ENDER: Marcos family scores major victories, suffer minor losses in 2019
YEAR-ENDER: Marcos family scores major victories, suffer minor losses in 2019
Published Dec 30, 2019 12:00 am
By Czarina Ong Ki
As another decade comes to a close, it seems like the Marcos family and their cronies managed to shrug off several of their civil cases filed before different divisions of the Sandiganbayan.
Imelda Marcos (AFP / TED ALJIBE / MANILA BULLETIN FILE PHOTO)
The winning streak of the Marcoses started as early as January this year as the anti-graft court's Special Fourth Division ordered the release of the sequestered properties of Gregorio Araneta III, son-in-law of late President Ferdinand Marcos.
In a 10-page resolution dated January 14, the anti-graft court granted Araneta's motion for release of sequestered properties. This is consistent with its December 6, 2005 resolution, affirmed by the Supreme Court in its February 8, 2012 decision, lifting the writ of only sequestered properties.
Araneta's Civil Case No. 0002 was in relation to the P200-billion worth of illegally-obtained wealth by the Marcos family. The Presidential Commission for Good Government (PCGG) sought to recover this ill-gotten wealth, but Araneta and 18 others were cleared back in 2005 when their case was dismissed.
Araneta argued that the sequestration of the properties attributed to him - namely IMEXCO Enterprises Inc., Northern Express Transport Inc. (NETI), and Philippine Semi-Conductor Devices Inc. - have already been lifted, so there was no longer any legal basis for this to be retained by the government.
The Sandiganbayan, for its part, found some merit in Araneta's claim. It clarified that only properties in the name of Araneta were ordered to be lifted - meaning IMEXCO Enterprises Inc. and Asialand Development Corporation. The rest of the properties will remain with the government.
Second win
The next victory came several months later as the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division granted the demurrer to evidence filed by six defendants who are the heirs of the late Luis Yulo and Yulo King Ranch (YKR) Corporation in their civil case involving Marcos.
The defendants filed their demurrer to evidence on May 28, which moved for the dismissal of the civil case because they argued that the Philippine Agri-Business Center Corporation (PABC) has no legal capacity to sue them.
The case stemmed from the complaint filed by PABC over the ownership of two parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. 6110 and 6111 in Busuanga, Palawan, which is known as part of the YKR. The PABC claimed that YKR Corporation unlawfully entered into the subject property and used it for cattle breeding and dispersal operations sometime in 1975.
The PABC demanded that YKR Corporation, which was associated with Marcos, vacate the properties. However, the demand was unheeded.
YKR then suggested a land-swapping arrangement after the intervention of then Minister Juan Tuvera, but this did not materialize since PABC rejected the public land being offered because it was situated in a rebel-infested territory in Kabankalan, Negros Occidental.
It was only in April 2, 1986 that the PCGG sequestered the YKR and gave possession and control of all of its assets, including the two parcels of land, to the Ministry of Agriculture. Throughout it all, the PABC failed to secure the said properties.
In its 14-page resolution, the anti-graft court ruled that the PABC's claim over the subject properties "remains unsubstantiated" because it failed to present the original Certificates of Title of its alleged predecessors.
"Wherefore, in the light of the foregoing, the present demurrer to evidence is hereby granted. Accordingly, the complainant-in-intervention is hereby dismissed," it said.
Streak continues
Another win came in August as the Sandiganbayan Second Division Division denied the complaint filed by the PCGG, which sought for reconveyance, revision, accounting, restitution, and damages for ill-gotten wealth against Marcos, his wife Imelda, Rafael Sison, Placido Mapa Jr., Don Ferry, Jose Tengco Jr., Ramon Monzon, Generosa Olazo, Cynthia Africa, and Rodolfo Arambulo.
In its 67-page ruling, the anti-graft court said that the burden of proof in the civil forfeiture proceedings fell on the PCGG. The question it sought is whether or not the PCGG was able to adduce sufficient evidence to prove that the properties sought to be recovered are in truth ill-gotten and that the defendants, by virtue of their position, close association or relation with President Marcos and his wife, accumulated wealth by illegal means.
For defendants Sison, Mapa Jr., Ferry and Tengco Jr., the PCGG said that they, through the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), extended loan accommodations to Aklan Bulk Carriers Inc., Fuga Bulk Carriers Inc., Coron Bulk Carriers Inc., and Ecija Bulk Carriers Inc. under terms and conditions grossly disadvantageous to the government. As a result, they were "unjustly enriched."
However, there was no evidence that proved that the defendants were in collaboration with the Marcoses when they offered the bank loans.
Monzon, on the other hand, was accused of being the "dummy" of Marcos' daughter, Imee, in BBC, IBC and RPN broadcasting corporations. Olazo was likewise accused of the same.
But sadly for the PCGG, the court ruled that they "failed to illustrate how defendants acted as dummies of Imelda Marcos in acquiring ill-gotten wealth."
Former executive vice president of Traders Royal Bank (TRB) Vergara and former Chairman Africa were accused of collaborating with the Marcoses in laundering their money in different foreign banks such as Bangue Paribas of France, Credit Swisse, Lombard, Odie and Cie of Switzerland, and California Overseas Bank of the United States.
But the evidence provided by the PCGG, which was a letter from the TRB, has not been identified nor authenticated by its author. As a result, it has no evidentiary weight.
The letter proves that Africa was indeed the former Chairman of the TRB. But the Sandiganbayan said that fact alone cannot be the ground for his liability. There was also no testimonial evidence against Africa and Vergara.
Meanwhile, Arambulo was accused of establishing California Overseas Bank "with the use of purloined funds." But the court found that the evidence presented against him is insufficient to establish its claim.
"It saddens the Court that it took more than 30 years before this case is submitted for decision and yet, the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain any of the causes of action against the remaining defendants," the decision read.
Tantocos' case junked
When October came, the Second Division handed the Marcoses another win as it dismissed the P1.052 billion civil case filed against Rustan's Group of Company (RGC) owners Bienvenido Tantoco Sr. and Gliceria Tantoco, which also involved Marcos and his wife, Imelda, due to the insufficiency of the prosecution's evidence.
Civil Case No. 0008 was filed based on the complaint for Reconveyance, Reversion, Accounting, Restitution and Damages on March 18, 1988 by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG). Included in the civil case are the Tantocos, Marcoses, as well as Maria Lourdes Tantoco-Pineda, and Dominador Santiago.
The PCGG sought the recovery of ill-gotten wealth constituting of funds and property, which were reportedly acquired during the term of Marcos from December 30, 1965 to February 1986. Some of these properties include residential lands in Honolulu, Hawaii and Makati City, as well as a house and lot in Via Appia, Rome. They also own jewelry, notes and mortgages receivables, motor vehicles, and aircrafts like the Cessna Citation S550, Cessna Model 421 and 441.
They also have shares of stocks in Tourist Duty Free Shops Inc. and Hari-Raya Coffee Shops, Inc., Rustan Commercial Corporation, Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines, Sanmar Export Corporation, Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation, and Philippine Eagle Mines, Inc., among many others.
The PCGG claimed that the defendants Tantocos and Marcoses, in unlawful concert with one another, constituted gross abuse of official abuse of official position and authority while the other defendants acted as "dummies" in the acquisition of unexplained wealth.
The respondents acquired the franchise to exclusively manage and operate tourists duty-free shops at international airports, hotels, and commercial centers by securing presidential approval, and they were supposed to pay only a minimal franchise tax of seven percent of the gross income. This was even shared with the Nutrition Center for the Philippines with Imelda as president, the Manila Seedling Bank with Bienvenido Tantoco Jr. as president, as well as the Mount Samat Reforestation Project.
Out of the seven percent, only two percent really went to the government coffers. The five percent became the “petty cash” of Imelda since these were reportedly funneled to her private foundations.
They also procured almost unlimited duty-free importation benefits and manipulated importations by mere Draft Acceptances in excess of the amounts allowed by the Central Bank.
However, the anti-graft court ruled that the totality of the prosecution's evidence failed to prove the allegations of the PCGG. The prosecution only presented four witnesses before the court before waiving further presentation of evidence due to non-appearance of PCGG lawyers.
Secretary off the hook
Another win for the Marcoses came on October as the P267.371 million civil forfeiture case involving Imelda's secretary Fe Roa Gimenez and her husband Ignacio Gimenez.
Back on July 21, 1987, the PCGG and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Complaint for Reconveyance, Reversion, Accounting, Restitution and Damages against the Marcoses and the spouses Gimenez, who were considered as their "close business associates."
Also included were secretary Vilma Bautista and her husband Gregorio Bautista, and former vice president and manager of the Manhattan branch of the Philippine National Bank Oscar Cariño.
Fe reportedly engaged in the unlawful transfer of millions of dollars of government funds into several accounts in her name in foreign countries, then disbursed these funds from her various personal accounts for her and the defendants' personal use and enrichment. She also acted as a conduit for the Marcoses in purchasing expensive works of art as well as other properties located in New York, USA.
On the other hand, Ignacio served as the Marcoses' dummy in certain corporations, such as Allied Banking Corporation.
The court said in its resolution dated October 14 that the PCGG and OSG have failed to discharge its burden of providing proper pieces of evidence that could lead to the conviction of the respondents.
"From the submission of mere photocopied documents, submission of unauthenticated private documents, submission of documents which are both photocopied and unauthenticated private documents, and finally, in failing to produce at the witness stand the affiants/declarants of the affidavits and declarations that it submitted in order to prevent the contents of the said documents from being treated as hearsay, it is apparent that the defects in the pieces of evidence that were presented by the Republic prevent it from successfully pursuing the present civil forfeiture case," the resolution stated.
Winning streak hits a snag
The tides changed at the start of December as the Sandiganbayan Third Division ordered Marcos and his wife to return all their shares in the Eastern Telecommunications Philippines Inc. (ETPI) and pay back the government over P69 million, which represents the value of the ETPI shares conveyed to ISM Communications on July 2005 and exemplary damages.
On the other hand, the decision promulgated on December 4 dismissed the same civil case against defendants Imelda, her son Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr., and former Senator Juan Ponce Enrile for failure of the prosecution to properly establish evidence against them.
Civil Case No. 0009 is based on the complaint for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages filed against the Marcoses and their close associates Jose L. Africa, Manuel H. Nieto, the late Roberto Benedicto, and Enrile filed by the government, represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), back in July 1987.
The PCGG sought to recover P2.756 billion worth of shares of stocks and P2.274 million worth of real properties. The properties involved in the case include ETPI, Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC), Philippine Communication Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT), Domestic Satellite (DOMSAT), and Oceanic Wireless Network Inc. (OWNI).
The PCGG said that the defendants, through "dubious arrangements" with the members of the board of the National Development Corporation (NDC), purchased NDC's shareholdings in the PHILCOMSAT "under highly unconscionable terms and conditions manifestly disadvantageous to the government and its people."
The defendants were accused of creating a scheme in order to monopolize the telecommunications industry by "manipulating the purchase of the major stockholding of London-based Cable and Wireless Limited in ETPI."
In its ruling, the anti-graft court said that defendants Africa and Nieto Jr. failed to present sufficient evidence to overturn the prima facie evidence that their shares in the ETPI are ill-gotten wealth.
The dispositive portion of the ruling ordered "that the shares of defendants Jose L. Africa and Manuel H. Nieto Jr. in the ETPI, which were acquired on June 10, 1974, Polygon Investors and Managers Inc. and Aerocom Investors and Managers Inc., and the so-called small individual shareholders...be reverted/reconveyed to the Republic of the Philippines."
These small individual shareholders are held by Victor Africa, Lourdes Africa, ITF Natalie Africa, Lourdes Africa, Rosario Songco, Raquel Dinglasan, Manuel V. Nieto III, Ramon V. Nieto, Victoria N. Legarda, Ma. Rita N. Delos Reyes, Rosario N. Arellano, Angela N. Lobregat, Benito Nieto, Carlos V. Nieto, Carmen N. Tuazon, and Rafael Valdes.
The court also ordered Africa and Nieto Jr., substituted by their legal heirs, to reconvey to the government "all the stock/cash dividends received/deposited and interests that may have accrued/may still accrue thereto" and pay P1 million as exemplary damages.
The decision likewise ordered "Aerocom Investors and Managers, Inc. and/or defendant Manuel H. Nieto Jr., substituted by his legal heirs, to pay the Republic the amount of P68,167,610.93, which is equivalent to the value of its ETPI shares it had transferred or conveyed to ISM Communications on July 2005."
The anti-graft court stressed that the monetary awards decreed shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent per annum from the date of finality of the decision until fully paid.
Final victory
The final victory of the Marcoses came on December 16 as the Fourth Division promulgated Civil Case No. 0002 in favor of the late President, his wife Imelda, and their children.
"Wherefore, premises considered, for failure of the plaintiff to prove its allegations by preponderance of evidence, the subject Complaint filed against defendants Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos Manotoc, Irene R. Marcos Araneta, Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., and Constante Rubio is hereby dismissed," the dispositive portion of the decision read.
"Similarly, the respective counterclaims of said defendants are dismissed for their failure to prove the same by preponderance of evidence," it added.
The P200-billion civil forfeiture case, filed by the PCGG back on July 16, 1987, stemmed from the "misappropriation and theft of public funds, plunder of the nation's wealth, extortion, blackmail, bribery, embezzlement and other acts of corruption," the complaint against them read.
The PCGG urged the anti-graft court to let them return all funds and properties they have illegally obtained. They also sought exemplary damages amounting to P1 billion, including temperate damages, attorney fees and litigation expenses to be determined by the court, among other things.
But in its ruling, the court said that it concerned itself with the "legal truth, regardless of the actual truth." So "regardless of how the members of the Court may feel towards the case, the Court is mandated to look only into the applicable law and jurisprudence, and the evidence presented to it," it added.
In this case, the PCGG's case took a big hit because most of the evidence it offered are mere photocopies. Most of it, the court noted, are not even readable.
So while the Sandiganbayan acknowledges the "atrocities" of the Marcos regime and the "plunder" of the country's resources, the Court said that "absent sufficient evidence that may lead to the conclusion that the subject properties were indeed ill-gotten by the Marcoses, the Court cannot simply order the return of the same to the national treasury," the decision read.
Return artworks, Marcos kin ordered
The Marcoses did not end 2019 on a high note despite all their victories as the Sandiganbayan First Division ordered the kin of Marcos to return the paintings and artworks that were illegally acquired during his term.
In a 42-page judgment promulgated on December 19, the anti-graft court declared several works of art owned by the Marcos family as “unlawfully acquired.”
These include the several artworks listed by the PCGG, Grandma Moses paintings, artworks listed in the report on the Metropolitan Museum of Manila's Art Collection, and other similarly acquired valuable artworks.
The dispositive portion of the judgment ordered the respondents or representatives to “cease and desist from disposing, transferring and/or selling any of the above-mentioned paintings and artworks, render an accounting of the paintings and artworks that are still under their control and possession, render an accounting of paintings and artworks already sold and surrender the proceeds thereof to petitioner Republic, and surrender the paintings and/or divulge their current location.”
The PCGG filed the civil forfeiture case against the Marcoses and their relatives on December 17, 1991. Part of the items being sought recovered are paintings and silverwares, already sold at public auction in the United States worth $17 million. Also included are jewelries, paintings and other valuable decorative arts.
Imelda Marcos (AFP / TED ALJIBE / MANILA BULLETIN FILE PHOTO)
The winning streak of the Marcoses started as early as January this year as the anti-graft court's Special Fourth Division ordered the release of the sequestered properties of Gregorio Araneta III, son-in-law of late President Ferdinand Marcos.
In a 10-page resolution dated January 14, the anti-graft court granted Araneta's motion for release of sequestered properties. This is consistent with its December 6, 2005 resolution, affirmed by the Supreme Court in its February 8, 2012 decision, lifting the writ of only sequestered properties.
Araneta's Civil Case No. 0002 was in relation to the P200-billion worth of illegally-obtained wealth by the Marcos family. The Presidential Commission for Good Government (PCGG) sought to recover this ill-gotten wealth, but Araneta and 18 others were cleared back in 2005 when their case was dismissed.
Araneta argued that the sequestration of the properties attributed to him - namely IMEXCO Enterprises Inc., Northern Express Transport Inc. (NETI), and Philippine Semi-Conductor Devices Inc. - have already been lifted, so there was no longer any legal basis for this to be retained by the government.
The Sandiganbayan, for its part, found some merit in Araneta's claim. It clarified that only properties in the name of Araneta were ordered to be lifted - meaning IMEXCO Enterprises Inc. and Asialand Development Corporation. The rest of the properties will remain with the government.
Second win
The next victory came several months later as the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division granted the demurrer to evidence filed by six defendants who are the heirs of the late Luis Yulo and Yulo King Ranch (YKR) Corporation in their civil case involving Marcos.
The defendants filed their demurrer to evidence on May 28, which moved for the dismissal of the civil case because they argued that the Philippine Agri-Business Center Corporation (PABC) has no legal capacity to sue them.
The case stemmed from the complaint filed by PABC over the ownership of two parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. 6110 and 6111 in Busuanga, Palawan, which is known as part of the YKR. The PABC claimed that YKR Corporation unlawfully entered into the subject property and used it for cattle breeding and dispersal operations sometime in 1975.
The PABC demanded that YKR Corporation, which was associated with Marcos, vacate the properties. However, the demand was unheeded.
YKR then suggested a land-swapping arrangement after the intervention of then Minister Juan Tuvera, but this did not materialize since PABC rejected the public land being offered because it was situated in a rebel-infested territory in Kabankalan, Negros Occidental.
It was only in April 2, 1986 that the PCGG sequestered the YKR and gave possession and control of all of its assets, including the two parcels of land, to the Ministry of Agriculture. Throughout it all, the PABC failed to secure the said properties.
In its 14-page resolution, the anti-graft court ruled that the PABC's claim over the subject properties "remains unsubstantiated" because it failed to present the original Certificates of Title of its alleged predecessors.
"Wherefore, in the light of the foregoing, the present demurrer to evidence is hereby granted. Accordingly, the complainant-in-intervention is hereby dismissed," it said.
Streak continues
Another win came in August as the Sandiganbayan Second Division Division denied the complaint filed by the PCGG, which sought for reconveyance, revision, accounting, restitution, and damages for ill-gotten wealth against Marcos, his wife Imelda, Rafael Sison, Placido Mapa Jr., Don Ferry, Jose Tengco Jr., Ramon Monzon, Generosa Olazo, Cynthia Africa, and Rodolfo Arambulo.
In its 67-page ruling, the anti-graft court said that the burden of proof in the civil forfeiture proceedings fell on the PCGG. The question it sought is whether or not the PCGG was able to adduce sufficient evidence to prove that the properties sought to be recovered are in truth ill-gotten and that the defendants, by virtue of their position, close association or relation with President Marcos and his wife, accumulated wealth by illegal means.
For defendants Sison, Mapa Jr., Ferry and Tengco Jr., the PCGG said that they, through the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), extended loan accommodations to Aklan Bulk Carriers Inc., Fuga Bulk Carriers Inc., Coron Bulk Carriers Inc., and Ecija Bulk Carriers Inc. under terms and conditions grossly disadvantageous to the government. As a result, they were "unjustly enriched."
However, there was no evidence that proved that the defendants were in collaboration with the Marcoses when they offered the bank loans.
Monzon, on the other hand, was accused of being the "dummy" of Marcos' daughter, Imee, in BBC, IBC and RPN broadcasting corporations. Olazo was likewise accused of the same.
But sadly for the PCGG, the court ruled that they "failed to illustrate how defendants acted as dummies of Imelda Marcos in acquiring ill-gotten wealth."
Former executive vice president of Traders Royal Bank (TRB) Vergara and former Chairman Africa were accused of collaborating with the Marcoses in laundering their money in different foreign banks such as Bangue Paribas of France, Credit Swisse, Lombard, Odie and Cie of Switzerland, and California Overseas Bank of the United States.
But the evidence provided by the PCGG, which was a letter from the TRB, has not been identified nor authenticated by its author. As a result, it has no evidentiary weight.
The letter proves that Africa was indeed the former Chairman of the TRB. But the Sandiganbayan said that fact alone cannot be the ground for his liability. There was also no testimonial evidence against Africa and Vergara.
Meanwhile, Arambulo was accused of establishing California Overseas Bank "with the use of purloined funds." But the court found that the evidence presented against him is insufficient to establish its claim.
"It saddens the Court that it took more than 30 years before this case is submitted for decision and yet, the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain any of the causes of action against the remaining defendants," the decision read.
Tantocos' case junked
When October came, the Second Division handed the Marcoses another win as it dismissed the P1.052 billion civil case filed against Rustan's Group of Company (RGC) owners Bienvenido Tantoco Sr. and Gliceria Tantoco, which also involved Marcos and his wife, Imelda, due to the insufficiency of the prosecution's evidence.
Civil Case No. 0008 was filed based on the complaint for Reconveyance, Reversion, Accounting, Restitution and Damages on March 18, 1988 by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG). Included in the civil case are the Tantocos, Marcoses, as well as Maria Lourdes Tantoco-Pineda, and Dominador Santiago.
The PCGG sought the recovery of ill-gotten wealth constituting of funds and property, which were reportedly acquired during the term of Marcos from December 30, 1965 to February 1986. Some of these properties include residential lands in Honolulu, Hawaii and Makati City, as well as a house and lot in Via Appia, Rome. They also own jewelry, notes and mortgages receivables, motor vehicles, and aircrafts like the Cessna Citation S550, Cessna Model 421 and 441.
They also have shares of stocks in Tourist Duty Free Shops Inc. and Hari-Raya Coffee Shops, Inc., Rustan Commercial Corporation, Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines, Sanmar Export Corporation, Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation, and Philippine Eagle Mines, Inc., among many others.
The PCGG claimed that the defendants Tantocos and Marcoses, in unlawful concert with one another, constituted gross abuse of official abuse of official position and authority while the other defendants acted as "dummies" in the acquisition of unexplained wealth.
The respondents acquired the franchise to exclusively manage and operate tourists duty-free shops at international airports, hotels, and commercial centers by securing presidential approval, and they were supposed to pay only a minimal franchise tax of seven percent of the gross income. This was even shared with the Nutrition Center for the Philippines with Imelda as president, the Manila Seedling Bank with Bienvenido Tantoco Jr. as president, as well as the Mount Samat Reforestation Project.
Out of the seven percent, only two percent really went to the government coffers. The five percent became the “petty cash” of Imelda since these were reportedly funneled to her private foundations.
They also procured almost unlimited duty-free importation benefits and manipulated importations by mere Draft Acceptances in excess of the amounts allowed by the Central Bank.
However, the anti-graft court ruled that the totality of the prosecution's evidence failed to prove the allegations of the PCGG. The prosecution only presented four witnesses before the court before waiving further presentation of evidence due to non-appearance of PCGG lawyers.
Secretary off the hook
Another win for the Marcoses came on October as the P267.371 million civil forfeiture case involving Imelda's secretary Fe Roa Gimenez and her husband Ignacio Gimenez.
Back on July 21, 1987, the PCGG and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Complaint for Reconveyance, Reversion, Accounting, Restitution and Damages against the Marcoses and the spouses Gimenez, who were considered as their "close business associates."
Also included were secretary Vilma Bautista and her husband Gregorio Bautista, and former vice president and manager of the Manhattan branch of the Philippine National Bank Oscar Cariño.
Fe reportedly engaged in the unlawful transfer of millions of dollars of government funds into several accounts in her name in foreign countries, then disbursed these funds from her various personal accounts for her and the defendants' personal use and enrichment. She also acted as a conduit for the Marcoses in purchasing expensive works of art as well as other properties located in New York, USA.
On the other hand, Ignacio served as the Marcoses' dummy in certain corporations, such as Allied Banking Corporation.
The court said in its resolution dated October 14 that the PCGG and OSG have failed to discharge its burden of providing proper pieces of evidence that could lead to the conviction of the respondents.
"From the submission of mere photocopied documents, submission of unauthenticated private documents, submission of documents which are both photocopied and unauthenticated private documents, and finally, in failing to produce at the witness stand the affiants/declarants of the affidavits and declarations that it submitted in order to prevent the contents of the said documents from being treated as hearsay, it is apparent that the defects in the pieces of evidence that were presented by the Republic prevent it from successfully pursuing the present civil forfeiture case," the resolution stated.
Winning streak hits a snag
The tides changed at the start of December as the Sandiganbayan Third Division ordered Marcos and his wife to return all their shares in the Eastern Telecommunications Philippines Inc. (ETPI) and pay back the government over P69 million, which represents the value of the ETPI shares conveyed to ISM Communications on July 2005 and exemplary damages.
On the other hand, the decision promulgated on December 4 dismissed the same civil case against defendants Imelda, her son Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr., and former Senator Juan Ponce Enrile for failure of the prosecution to properly establish evidence against them.
Civil Case No. 0009 is based on the complaint for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages filed against the Marcoses and their close associates Jose L. Africa, Manuel H. Nieto, the late Roberto Benedicto, and Enrile filed by the government, represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), back in July 1987.
The PCGG sought to recover P2.756 billion worth of shares of stocks and P2.274 million worth of real properties. The properties involved in the case include ETPI, Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC), Philippine Communication Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT), Domestic Satellite (DOMSAT), and Oceanic Wireless Network Inc. (OWNI).
The PCGG said that the defendants, through "dubious arrangements" with the members of the board of the National Development Corporation (NDC), purchased NDC's shareholdings in the PHILCOMSAT "under highly unconscionable terms and conditions manifestly disadvantageous to the government and its people."
The defendants were accused of creating a scheme in order to monopolize the telecommunications industry by "manipulating the purchase of the major stockholding of London-based Cable and Wireless Limited in ETPI."
In its ruling, the anti-graft court said that defendants Africa and Nieto Jr. failed to present sufficient evidence to overturn the prima facie evidence that their shares in the ETPI are ill-gotten wealth.
The dispositive portion of the ruling ordered "that the shares of defendants Jose L. Africa and Manuel H. Nieto Jr. in the ETPI, which were acquired on June 10, 1974, Polygon Investors and Managers Inc. and Aerocom Investors and Managers Inc., and the so-called small individual shareholders...be reverted/reconveyed to the Republic of the Philippines."
These small individual shareholders are held by Victor Africa, Lourdes Africa, ITF Natalie Africa, Lourdes Africa, Rosario Songco, Raquel Dinglasan, Manuel V. Nieto III, Ramon V. Nieto, Victoria N. Legarda, Ma. Rita N. Delos Reyes, Rosario N. Arellano, Angela N. Lobregat, Benito Nieto, Carlos V. Nieto, Carmen N. Tuazon, and Rafael Valdes.
The court also ordered Africa and Nieto Jr., substituted by their legal heirs, to reconvey to the government "all the stock/cash dividends received/deposited and interests that may have accrued/may still accrue thereto" and pay P1 million as exemplary damages.
The decision likewise ordered "Aerocom Investors and Managers, Inc. and/or defendant Manuel H. Nieto Jr., substituted by his legal heirs, to pay the Republic the amount of P68,167,610.93, which is equivalent to the value of its ETPI shares it had transferred or conveyed to ISM Communications on July 2005."
The anti-graft court stressed that the monetary awards decreed shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent per annum from the date of finality of the decision until fully paid.
Final victory
The final victory of the Marcoses came on December 16 as the Fourth Division promulgated Civil Case No. 0002 in favor of the late President, his wife Imelda, and their children.
"Wherefore, premises considered, for failure of the plaintiff to prove its allegations by preponderance of evidence, the subject Complaint filed against defendants Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos Manotoc, Irene R. Marcos Araneta, Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., and Constante Rubio is hereby dismissed," the dispositive portion of the decision read.
"Similarly, the respective counterclaims of said defendants are dismissed for their failure to prove the same by preponderance of evidence," it added.
The P200-billion civil forfeiture case, filed by the PCGG back on July 16, 1987, stemmed from the "misappropriation and theft of public funds, plunder of the nation's wealth, extortion, blackmail, bribery, embezzlement and other acts of corruption," the complaint against them read.
The PCGG urged the anti-graft court to let them return all funds and properties they have illegally obtained. They also sought exemplary damages amounting to P1 billion, including temperate damages, attorney fees and litigation expenses to be determined by the court, among other things.
But in its ruling, the court said that it concerned itself with the "legal truth, regardless of the actual truth." So "regardless of how the members of the Court may feel towards the case, the Court is mandated to look only into the applicable law and jurisprudence, and the evidence presented to it," it added.
In this case, the PCGG's case took a big hit because most of the evidence it offered are mere photocopies. Most of it, the court noted, are not even readable.
So while the Sandiganbayan acknowledges the "atrocities" of the Marcos regime and the "plunder" of the country's resources, the Court said that "absent sufficient evidence that may lead to the conclusion that the subject properties were indeed ill-gotten by the Marcoses, the Court cannot simply order the return of the same to the national treasury," the decision read.
Return artworks, Marcos kin ordered
The Marcoses did not end 2019 on a high note despite all their victories as the Sandiganbayan First Division ordered the kin of Marcos to return the paintings and artworks that were illegally acquired during his term.
In a 42-page judgment promulgated on December 19, the anti-graft court declared several works of art owned by the Marcos family as “unlawfully acquired.”
These include the several artworks listed by the PCGG, Grandma Moses paintings, artworks listed in the report on the Metropolitan Museum of Manila's Art Collection, and other similarly acquired valuable artworks.
The dispositive portion of the judgment ordered the respondents or representatives to “cease and desist from disposing, transferring and/or selling any of the above-mentioned paintings and artworks, render an accounting of the paintings and artworks that are still under their control and possession, render an accounting of paintings and artworks already sold and surrender the proceeds thereof to petitioner Republic, and surrender the paintings and/or divulge their current location.”
The PCGG filed the civil forfeiture case against the Marcoses and their relatives on December 17, 1991. Part of the items being sought recovered are paintings and silverwares, already sold at public auction in the United States worth $17 million. Also included are jewelries, paintings and other valuable decorative arts.