The Sandiganbayan has dismissed Civil Case No. 0014, an ill-gotten wealth case filed in 1987 against the late former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his wife Imelda, and other alleged business associates and so-called cronies.
In a 45-page decision, the anti-graft court ruled there is no sufficient evidence presented to justify the forfeiture of the properties and assets of the Marcoses and other defendants.
"It is well to note that in civil cases, such as this action for reconveyance, revision, accounting, restitution and damages, basic is the rule that whoever alleges a fact has the burden of proving it because mere allegation is not evidence," the court said.
It pointed out that the writs of sequestration previously issued by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) against the properties do not, by themselves, prove that the properties are ill-gotten.
The fact that the court lifted the writs of sequestration in a resolution dated June 14, 2022 only proves that it has no bearing in proving that the assets are ill-gotten, it stressed.
In Civil Case No. 0014, the PCGG accused the Marcoses of channeling funds through their alleged business associates Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio and other cronies such as Modesto Enriquez, Trinidad Diaz-Enriquez, Leandro Enriquez, Roman A. Cruz Jr. and Gregorio R. Castillo, and Don M. Ferry.
Through the alleged business associates and so-called cronies, the PCGG claimed that the Marcoses were able to gain control over businesses such as Fantasia Filipina Resorts, Inc., Hotel Properties, Inc., Monte Sol Development Corporation, Ocean Villas Condominium Corporation, Olas del Mar Development Corporation, Philippine Village Hotel, Philroad Construction Corporation, Puerto Azul Beach and Country Club, Inc., Silahis International Hotel, Sulo-Dobbs Food Services, Inc., and Ternate Development Corporation.
In its decision, the Sandiganbayan said that in the Articles of Incorporation and the General Information Sheets of the said corporations, only the names of the individual defendants are shown and there was no linkage to the Marcoses.
"Nothing on the face of these documents shows that defendants Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos had any interest or control over the subject corporations," the court said.
The defendants' witness, accounting clerk Ma. Concepcion Ezpeleta-Torralba, even testified that she had never seen the Marcoses during her entire service to the Panlilio couple. "Verily, nothing in these documents would show that said corporations or the amounts paid in the stocks of the said corporations came from the government nor acquired them through illegal means or through their relationship with the Marcoses," it said.
Even if the documents bore any substantial proof against the defendants, the court said that they are still inadmissible because of the failure to observe the Best Evidence Rule. The bulk of the documentary evidence were "mere photocopies," and "most of which are barely readable."
The best evidence rule “is a legal principle that holds an original of a document as superior evidence.” The rule specifies that “secondary evidence, such as a copy or facsimile, will be not admissible if an original document exists and can be obtained.”
The Sandiganbayan said that PCGG also relied on the affidavit of its sole witness, Maria Lourdes O. Magno. However, the court said that Magno had no participation in the preparation of all documentary exhibits, nor was she a signatory of it, and has no personal knowledge of the veracity of the contents of the said documents.
Associate Justice Arthur O. Malabaguio wrote the decision promulgated on June 27, 2023 with the concurrence of Second Division Chairperson Oscar C. Herrera Jr. and Associate Justice Edgardo M. Caldona.