MANILA – The Sandiganbayan has thrown out a case alleging the acquisition of ill-gotten wealth by former president Ferdinand E. Marcos, former first lady Imelda Marcos, and several other individuals due to insufficient evidence.
According to the court’s second division, the prosecution failed to present convincing evidence to support the charges that the properties and assets in question were unlawfully obtained.
The case was initially filed in 1987 by the Presidential Commission on Good Government.
The co-respondents in Civil Case 0014 alongside the Marcoses were Modesto Enriquez, Trinidad Diaz-Enriquez, Rebecco Panlilio, Erlinda Enriquez-Panlilio, Leandro Enriquez, Don Ferry, Roman Cruz Jr., and Gregorio Castillo.
Former President Marcos passed away in 1989.
In its ruling, the court stated that “the evidence provided by the plaintiff did not sufficiently establish, by preponderance of evidence, a valid cause of action against the defendants.”
The properties in question include Fantasia Filipina Resorts Inc., Hotel Properties Inc., Monte Sol Development Corp., Ocean Villas Condominium Corp., Olas del Mar Development Corp., Philippine Village Hotel, Philroad Construction Corp., Puerto Azul Beach and Country Club Inc., Silahis International Hotel, Sulo-Dobbs Food Services Inc., and Ternate Development Corp.
“In particular, the plaintiff failed to prove that the subject properties were ‘ill-gotten,’ namely, (1) that the properties and assets listed in Annex ‘A’ of the Amended Complaint originated from the government, and (2) that they were acquired by the individual defendants through illegal means or by exploiting their close relationship with Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos,” the court explained.
Furthermore, during the trial, the defendants maintained that “they obtained ownership of the subject corporations through legal means and not as cronies or proxies of the Marcoses.”
“It is important to emphasize that the defendants’ assertions remained unchallenged by the plaintiff throughout the trial,” the court noted. “Considering the lack of substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that the subject properties were indeed ill-gotten wealth, the Court cannot simply order their return to the national treasury.” (ai/mtvn)
