The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the Sept. 25, 2019 Sandiganbayan’s decision which dismissed the P1.05 billion ill-gotten wealth case filed in 1987 against the late former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, who was substituted by his heirs, and the late Ambassador Bienvenido Tantoco Sr. and some of his relatives. In a decision promulgated on March 29, 2023, made public on Wednesday, July 19, and written by Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the SC said: “After a careful review of the evidence on record, the Court finds that the Sandiganbayan committed no error in finding that petitioner (Presidential Commission on Good Government) failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove the allegations of its Expanded Complaint by the required quantum of evidence.” Named respondents in Civil Case No. 0008 for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages, aside from the Marcoses, were Bienvenido Tantoco Sr., Bienvenido R. Tantoco Jr., Gliceria R. Tantoco, Maria Lourdes Tantoco-Pineda, and Dominador R. Santiago. The late then President Marcos was substituted by his heirs Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. (now the President), lmee Marcos (now a senator), and Irene Marcos-Araneta. Santiago substituted for Gliceria R. Tantoco. In its complaint, the PCGG sought to recover alleged ill-gotten wealth constituting of funds and property, which were reportedly acquired during the term of the late President from Dec. 30, 1965 to February 1986. The PCGG said that among the properties include residential lands in Honolulu, Hawaii and Makati City, as well as a house and lot in Via Appia, Rome. It also mentioned jewelry, notes and mortgages receivables, motor vehicles, and aircrafts like the Cessna Citation S550, Cessna Model 421 and 441. Also sought for reconveyance and forfeiture were 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 other firms. The PCGG claimed that the Tantocos and the Marcoses, in unlawful concert with one another, abused their official position and authority, while the other defendants acted as "dummies" in the acquisition of unexplained wealth. It also alleged that the Marcoses and their business associates acquired the franchise to exclusively manage and operate tourist 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. The PCGG also alleged that out of the seven percent, only two percent really went to the government coffers. The five percent became the “petty cash” of Mrs. Imelda Marcos since these were reportedly funneled to her private foundations. In ordering the dismissal of the civil case, the Sandiganbayan 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. The anti-graft court said the letters presented by the prosecution from the Commission on Audit (COA), Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), and Bureau of Customs (BOC) only pertain to alleged tax deficiencies. The letters do not prove how the defendants are “dummies” of the Marcoses in the operation of duty-free shops, and their participation in securing the presidential decree was not established. The Sandiganbayan also denied the admission of several exhibits for being mere photocopies, which is in violation of the Best Evidence Rule. "The plaintiff was not able to prove by preponderance of evidence that defendants Tantocos, Tantoco-Pineda, Tantoco Jr., and Santiago by themselves and/or in unlawful concert with the defendants Marcoses collaborated in 'schemes, devices, and stratagems' to appropriate and conceal the ownership of illegally obtained assets,'" the anti-graft court ruled. "Plaintiff (PCGG) failed to prove that defendant Tantoco Sr. acquired assets, funds and other property grossly and manifestly disproportionate to his salaries, lawful income, and income from legitimately acquired property when he served as public officer during the Marcos administration," it said. "There is likewise insufficient evidence to prove that the defendants acted as dummies, nominees, and/or agents of defendants Marcoses in acquiring works of art, clothes, jewelry, or real estate worth billions of pesos," it added. In denying PCGG’s petition, the SC said: “Aside from failing to prove the allegation that the Tantocos were dummies of the Marcoses, the alleged participation of the respondents in securing the issuance of the presidential decree was not established. Neither was the claim proved that five percent (5%) of the franchise tax paid by The Duty-Free Shops went to Mrs. Marcos. “Clearly, these documents are insufficient to prove that respondents concealed illegally obtained assets, or amassed ill-gotten wealth. “The same disjointedness and failure to show relevance can be said about the testimonies of the four witnesses. “In order to consider petitioner's evidence as sufficient to prove the allegations of its Expanded Complaint, the Court has to perform many leaps of logic, engage in presumptions, and create inferences based on other inferences in order to bridge the gaps in the evidence adduced. “In the face of such gaps; petitioner's allegations in its Expanded Complaint are reduced to mere speculations, insinuations· and conjectures. “Thus, while it is truly disappointing that nothing has come of this case despite the lapse of 36 years spent in litigation, the Court agrees with the Sandiganbayan that petitioner's evidence is insufficient to support the allegations of its Expanded Complaint by a preponderance of evidence. “Accordingly, the Sandiganbayan was correct in dismissing the Expanded Complaint for Reconveyance, Accounting, Restitution and Damages against all the respondents. “In view of the foregoing, the petition is denied.  The Decision dated Sept.25, 2019 of the Sandiganbayan in Civil Case No. 0008, dismissing the Expanded Complaint against respondents Bienvenido R. Tantoco, Jr., Dominador R. Santiago, Ferdinand E. Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos, Bienvenido R. Tantoco, Sr., Gliceria R. Tantoco, and Maria Lourdes Tantoco Pineda for insufficiency of evidence, and the Resolution dated Nov. 20, 2019, denying reconsideration thereof, are affirmed in toto. So ordered.”