The Sandiganbayan has denied the motion to reconsider the court's decision that dismissed the civil case for forfeiture and reconveyance of alleged ill-gotten wealth filed against the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his wife Imelda, and their alleged cronies.

Civil Case No. 0024, filed in July 1987 named as respondents the Marcos couple and their so-called cronies Peter A. Sabido, Robert S. Benedicto, Luis A. Yulo, Nicolas Dehesa, Jose R. Tengco Jr., Rafael Sison, Cesar Zalamea, and Don M. Ferry, as well as the companies Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc. (LBLCI), Phil. Integrated Meat Corporation, Yulo King Ranch (YKR) Corporation, and PIMECO Marketing Corporation.

The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), which filed the complaint, claimed that the ill-gotten wealth was amassed through shares of stocks in PIMECO, LBLCI, and YKR, since these were reportedly dummy corporations held by Yulo in beneficial trust for the Marcoses. The PCGG wanted the defendants to return all the alleged unlawfully-acquired properties, not to mention P50 billion in damages and another P1 billion in legal expenses.

But the Sandiganbayan in its Feb. 21, 2023 decision dismissed the complaint with a ruling that there was no evidence presented by the PCGG that would show how the Marcoses had any hand in YKR, LBLCI, and all other corporations listed in the complaint.

The anti-graft court also found that there was no "competent evidence" that would prove who were the close associates of Marcos and how they all amassed assets and properties that would be rightly considered as ill-gotten wealth.

In its motion for reconsideration, the prosecution claimed that defendants Sabido, Sison, and Ferry, took advantage of their relationship, influence, and connection with the Marcos family to hide ill-gotten wealth and unjustly enrich themselves.

But in its five-page resolution dated Aug. 11, 2023, the anti-graft court said that the burden of proving the allegations lies on the prosecution. The court said that they should rely on the strength of their own evidence and not upon the weakness of the defense.

"An examination of the records of the case reveals that the arguments raised by the plaintiff in the present motion are the very same issues already discussed and passed upon by the court in the assailed decision," it said.

"For failure of the plaintiff to convince the court of the cogency of their position and finding no new matters or persuasive grounds to merit a reconsideration of its earlier decision, the court finds no convincing reason to depart from it," it added.

Associate Justice Maria Theresa V. Mendoza-Arcega wrote the resolution with the concurrence of Fifth Division Chairperson Associate Justice Rafael R. Lagos and Associate Justice Maryann E. Corpus-Mañalac.