The Sandiganbayan has dismissed, for violation of the right to speedy disposition of cases, a civil complaint against the late former President Ferdinand E. Marcos and his wife, former first lady Imelda R. Marcos, involving the Pinugay Estate in Tanay, Rizal.
In a resolution, the anti-graft court granted the motion to dismiss filed by Mrs. Marcos last July 16.
The late President Marcos was subsituted in the civil case -- denominated as Civil Case No. 0006 for reconveyance, reverstion, accounting, restitution, and damages -- by the now President Bongbong Marcos.
Civil Case No. 0006 was filed in 1987 by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG).
Mrs. Marcos sought the dismissal the complaint for failure of the prosecution to initiate the needed actions to prosecute them resulting in the violation of their right to speedy disposition of cases.
In dismissing the case in a resolution written by Associate Justice Geraldine Faith Econg and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo M. Caldona and Arthur O. Malabaguio, the Sandiganbayan said:
"As for the reasons for the delay, it started with the defective complaint which led to the filing of the bill of particulars and the dismissal of the case against the estate of Ferdinand Marcos in a resolution dated Oct. 25, 2012.
"This resolution was reversed by the Supreme Court but it excluded the Estate of Ferdinand Marcos from paragraphs 9, 12(a), 12(b), 12(c) and 12(e) of the Expanded Complaint, without prejudice to the standing valid effect of paragraph 12(d) or the Pinugay Estate.
"Scrutiny of the chronology of events in this case shows a plethora of motions for extension filed due to unpreparedness or lack of witnsses/documentary evidence, aside from pending incidents, and scheduled pre-trial cancellations contributing to the inordinate dela
"Thus far, there has been no pre-trial in this case and the trial has not eben started. A long period of time has elapsed without the defendants having their case tried.
"Clearly, there was a violation of the defendants’ rights to the speedy disposition of their case since the records show scarcely anything besides the plaintiff’s lack of diligence in handling cases.
"Holding otherwise would be out of consonance with the current legal milieu and a clear show of disrespect to the right of the defendants to the speedy disposition of their case."
In the same resolution handed down last Oct. 4, the Sandiganbayan said that the defendants in the civil case can no longer be afforded a fair trial since “the witnesses may have already died and the documentary evidence may no longer be located after more than 30 years from the filing of the complaint.”
“Considering that the extant living defendant is 95 years old (obviously referring to Mrs. Marcos), her ability to testify and recall the events has assuredly declined, as has her health,” the resolution also stated.
It reminded that "the alleged transaction involving the Pinugay Estate happened around 53 years ago, during which, the heirs of the late defendant Ferdinand Marcos would have been minors.”
“This would give the defendants difficulty in finding testimonial and documentary evidence to prove their defense considering the time that has elapsed,” it added.
"Wherefore, in view of the foregoing, the Motion to Dismiss filed by defendants Imelda R. Marcos and the Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos dated July 16, 2024 is hereby granted and the instant case is hereby dismissed as against them," the Sandiganbayan ruled.