The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the 2012 Sandiganbayan’s decision that dismissed the ill-gotten wealth case filed against the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos and several associates led by businessman Lucio C. Tan.

The SC ruled: “Here, even if we apply the comprehensive definition of ill-gotten wealth, the pieces of evidence relied upon by the Republic (represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government or PCGG) failed to establish all its elements. Notably, some of these pieces of evidence are even of doubtful admissibility.”  

The SC’s full court decision was written by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda and was made public on Tuesday, Nov. 14.

The complaint was filed by the PCGG in 1987. With the death of the former President, his heirs, among them the now President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr., were named respondents.

It involved reversion, reconveyance, restitution, accounting, and damages against the Marcoses and the business associates.

The main civil case, including the related incidents, were dismissed by the Sandiganbayan.  The PCGG elevated the issues before the SC in four separate petitions which were all denied.

In denying the petitions, the SC upheld the findings of the Sandiganbayan that the pieces of evidence presented by the PCGG failed to establish that the assets and properties covered in the complaint were illegally acquired.

Among the pieces of evidence presented by the PCGG were former First Lady Imelda R. Marcos’ amended answer, Tan’s written disclosure, Marcos Jr.’s testimony, and documents found by the commission during its investigations.

The SC ruled: “It appears, however, that none of the pieces of evidence relied upon by the Republic (PCGG) was successful in establishing the manner by which respondents (Marcoses) allegedly acquired ill-gotten wealth. It was not shown, through these pieces of evidence, if and how respondents took undue advantage of their office, authority, influence, connections, or relationship.”

It pointed out that “the recovery of ill-gotten wealth, with its laudable purpose initiated as it is ‘not only out of considerations of simple justice but also out of sheer necessity,’ places a heavy responsibility on the Republic and poses a demanding task for the Sandiganbayan and this Court.”

“As the party seeking the recovery, the Republic has the burden of establishing its claim through admissible and relevant evidence. As vanguards of justice, the Sandiganbayan, and ultimately, this Court, have the obligation not only to meticulously analyze and weigh all the averments and pieces of evidence -- separating the unsubstantiated from those proved, discarding the irrelevant and inadmissible -- but also to ensure that issues already passed upon are not litigated anew,” it pointed out.

Aside from the Marcos heirs and Tan, also named respondents in the civil case were the latter’s family members and business associates.

Identified in the ill-gotten wealth case were Tan’s companies to which the late then President Marcos and Mrs. Marcos allegedly gave concessions to, or have interests or beneficial ownership.  

The companies included were 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 Trade Corp.,  Allied Leasing & Finance Corp., Jewel Holdings, Inc., Iris Holdings and Development Corp., and Virgo Holdings and Development Corp.    

In its complaint the PCGG alleged that the sale of the controlling interest of Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) in Century Park Sheraton Hotel (Century Park) -- owned by Maranaw Hotels and Resorts Corp. (Maranaw Hotels) -- to Sipalay Trading Corporation, a company controlled by Tan, has caused losses to DBP amounting to millions of pesos considering that Sipalay was grossly undercapitalized.  

In its decision, the SC noted that in Mrs. Marcos’ amended answer, she merely stated that Marcos had 60 percent beneficial ownership in Tan’s companies, which beneficial interests were held in trust by the business tycoon and his associates who were stockholders of the said companies.  

“There is nothing, however, in said amended answer that would even suggest that undue advantage of office, authority, influence, connections, or relationship was employed to facilitate the acquisition by Marcos of his 60 percent beneficial ownership in respondent Tan’s companies,” the SC said.  

It said that Tan’s written disclosure cannot be admitted as evidence for the failure of the prosecution to present him as a witness to authenticate the document.  

Tan’s 1986 disclosure was used by the PCGG to prove the 60-40 business arrangement between the businessman and the late then President Marcos, including the supposed incorporations of holding companies for the latter’s benefit.  

“As a rule, before a private document is admitted in evidence, it must be authenticated either by the person who executed it, the person before whom its execution was acknowledged, any person who was present and saw it executed, or who after its execution, saw it and recognized the signatures, or the person to whom the parties to the instruments had previously confessed execution thereof,” the SC explained.  

It said: “Here, the Written Disclosure cannot be admitted as evidence of the truth of its contents. The Republic did not present respondent Tan, the one who executed the document, as a witness. As such, respondent Tan was not cross- examined on the statements he made in the Written Disclosure. The hearsay rule excludes evidence that cannot be tested by cross-examination.”  

On Marcos Jr.’s testimony on the purported meetings with his father and Tan on the 60-40 business arrangement, the SC said Marcos Jr.’s testimony was hearsay which cannot be used by the prosecution.

“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 SC said.  

“Thus, the Court finds that Marcos, Jr.'s testimony is hearsay and may not be used to prove the truth of the facts asserted. Hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, cannot be given credence for it has no probative value,” it pointed out.  

Also affirmed by the SC was the 2010 Sandiganbayan ruling that dismissed the ill-gotten wealth case against Don Ferry and Cesar Zalamea in connection with the alleged anomalous Sipalay Trading deal.  

It also dismissed the PCGG’s petition seeking the reversal of the Sandiganbayan’s resolution issued in 2011 denying its motion to admit a third amended complaint which seeks to include Philip Morris and Fortune Tobacco and several other individuals as respondents in the case.

The dispositive portion of the SC’s full court decision:

“Wherefore, premises considered, the Court rules on the present consolidated petitions as follows:

“(1) In G.R. No. 195837, the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the Republic is denied, and the Sandiganbayan's Resolutions dated 22 December 2010 and 25 February 2011 are affirmed. The Sandiganbayan's dismissal of the complaint against respondents Don Ferry and Cesar Zalamea is declared valid.

“(2) In G.R. No. 198221, the Petition for Certiorari filed by the Republic is dismissed, and the Sandiganbayan's Order dated 9 June 2011 and Resolution dated 2 August 2011 are AFFIRMED. The Court holds that the testimonies of Joselito Yujuico and Aderito Yujuico were correctly excluded from evidence by the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan Resolutions dated 3 May 2011 and 4 July 2011 dismissing the Republic's Motion for Voluntary Inhibition are likewise affirmed.

“(3) In G.R. No. 198974, the Petition for Certiorari filed by the Republic is dismissed, and the Sandiganbayan Resolutions dated 8 July 2011 and 23 August 2011, which denied the Republic's Motion to Admit Third Amended Complaint, are affirmed.

“(4) In G.R. No, 203592, the Sandiganbayan Decision dated 11 June 2012 and Resolution dated 26 September 2012 dismissing the Republic's Second Amended Complaint ' for reversion, reconveyance, restitution, accounting and damages are affirmed. Consequently, the Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Republic of the Philippines is denied for lack of merit.”