The Sandiganbayan has dismissed the complaint filed against two defendants in an ill-gotten wealth case involving the reportedly illegal shares obtained by a private company through alleged disadvantageous contracts.
Dismissed through the grant of their demurrer to evidence were the charges against Investa Corporation Director Nilo Pena and the late Pompeyo Nolasco, a Domestic Satellite Philippines, Inc. (DOMSAT) director whose estate, with his death, was substituted as a defendant.
The grant of their demurrers was tantamount to their acquittal of the charges.
Both Pena and Nolasco were named defendants in Civil Case No 0182 which was filed by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) in 1998 to nullify the contract and shares and stocks between DOMSAT and Investa Corporation.
The complaint alleged that the contract and the shares of stocks were executed and obtained with the approval of then President Ferdinand E. Marcos in 1989.
Only Pena and the estate of Nolasco filed their responsive pleadings on the case, while an Order of Default has been issued by the court against the other defendants MLI Realty Corporation, Luz L. Yap, Investa Corporation, Ignacio D. Debuque Jr., Rodrigo A. Silverio, Cenon Cervantes Jr., Leonardo Godinez, and Rosol International, Inc. on May 30, 2022.
In their demurrer to evidence, Pena and ther estate of Nolasco pointed out that the testimonies of the witnesses, who had no direct and personal knowledge of the transactions at issue in the case, failed to establish the claim against them.
They added that the allegations in the complaint do not attribute to them any act or omission that is illicit, malicious, or particularly forbidden by law or government regulations. They said that the plaintiffs' (PCGG) prayer for damages is directed only at defendants Investa and Debuque.
The Sandiganbayan said the evidence presented by the plaintiff failed to support their allegations of bad faith and damages against any of the defendants.
Even if it were true that the Republic's shares in DOMSAT were diluted because of questionable transactions, the court said that plaintiff was unable to show proof that the dilution resulted from acts or omissions that are illicit, malicious, or forbidden by law or government regulation.
"Here, plaintiffs' mere allegations of a supposed plot to weaken the hold of the Republic on the sequestered shares, without hard evidence, cannot be considered as clear and convincing proof of either bad faith or fraud," the court said.
"The records are bereft of any evidence to support the alleged bad faith of the defendants in performing the questioned transactions. Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims that the Management Contract as well as the issuance of DOMSAT shares in favor of the defendants should be declared void ab initio would simply have no leg to stand on," it added.
And since the documentary evidence offered by the plaintiff cannot be used as proof of the veracity of their contents, the court said it is left with no basis to grant any of the damages prayed for in the complaint.
The 14-page resolution was written by Associate Justice Arthur O. Malabaguio with the concurrence of Second Division Chairperson Associate Justice Geraldine Faith A. Econg and Associate Justice Edgardo M. Caldona.