MANILA – The Sandiganbayan has junked the Philippine government’s appeal on the dismissed P1.052 billion ill-gotten wealth case against former President Ferdinand Marcos, his wife Imelda and their crony Bienvenido Tantoco Sr., among others.
In a decision that was released publicly over the weekend, the Sandiganbayan agreed with the Tantocos’ argument that they did not admit the material allegations of the Expanded Complaint regarding the illnature of Tourist Duty Free Shops Inc. assets.
It added that the Philippine government – represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government – only presented evidence consisting of conditionally admitted documentary exhibits and inconsequential witness testimonies which were insufficient to prove its charges.
“The instant motion is denied for lack of merit. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held in a long line of cases that a Motion for Reconsideration should be denied when the same only rehashes issues previously put forward. In this case, no new argument was presented by the Republic of the Philippines,” it said.
“The arguments raised therein have already been judiciously passed upon and properly considered by the Court in the assailed [September] Decision, which states that the documentary and testimonial evidence presented by the plaintiff are insufficient to prove the allegations in the Expanded Complaint. Wherefore, in light of the foregoing, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by plaintiff Republic of the Philippines is denied for lack of merit,” the Sandiganbayan added.
The anti-graft court has earlier dismissed the P1.052 billion ill-gotten wealth case vs. the Marcos couple and their cronies on the grounds that:
1.) Only four witnesses were presented before the anti-graft court, with further presentations of evidence waived in October 2006 due to the unjustified non-appearance of Philippine government’s counsel;
2.) The anti-graft court denied the admission of a handful of evidence marked as ”MMM” to “AAAAAAA” because the Philippine government failed to present the same in the discovery proceedings despite the directives of the anti-graft court and the Supreme Court; and
3.) The other exhibits also denied admission by the anti-graft court for being mere photocopies, which was not compliant with the Best Evidence Rule.
The government prosecutors, in the same case, also accused Tantoco, among others, of acting as dummies of the Marcos couple in acquiring its franchise to operate Tourist Duty Free Shops, Inc. for the purpose of concealing the ownership of illegally-obtained assets, and that the defendants managed to secure the approval of then-President Marcos to operate and manage duty free shops exclusively and pay only a minimum franchise tax of seven percent./PN
