Members of the immediate family of the late President Ferdinand Marcos and his alleged cronies won another round in the battery of cases filed against them by previous administrations.
This as the Sandiganbayan’s second division upheld its decision to dismiss Civil Case 0014 involving high-value properties such as hotels, resorts, and other corporations.
In the resolution of the court promulgated on Tuesday, August 8, 2023, the motion for reconsideration filed by the government through the Solicitor General was denied for lack of merit.
The antigraft court noted that the Solicitor General did not present any new arguments and evidence to warrant the reversal of the original decision.
“Needless to state, the allegations contained in the motion are mere rehash of the issues already ruled, passed upon, and judiciously resolved by this court,” the resolution written by Associate Justice Arthur Malabaguio said. Division Chairman Justice Oscar Herrera, Jr. and Associate Justice Edgardo Caldona, concurred.
Civil Case 0014 was one of the forfeiture cases filed in 1987, during the administration of then-President Corazon Cojuangco Aquino involving assets and properties owned by the former President and First Lady.
The impleaded corporations include Philippine Village Hotel, Puerto Azul Beach and Country Club, Ternate Development Corporation, Fantasia Filipina Resorts, Inc. Ocean Villas Condominium Corporation, and Silahis International Hotel, which belongs to the Sulo group owned by the Enriquez family.
In 2009, the Presidential Commission on Good Government estimated the subject properties in Civil Case No. 0014 at P581 million.
With the death of the former President, he was substituted in the case by heirs, including President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., Sen. Imee Marcos, and Irene Marcos-Araneta.
In junking the appeal, the antigraft court said that the testimony of the records custodian of the Presidental Commission on Good Government, Maria Lourdes Magno, “fell within the category of hearsay evidence.”
“With the foregoing considerations, it follows that the best evidence rule applies in this case and, therefore, plaintiff’s (PCGG’s) sole witness Magno is not competent to testify as to the contents and existence of the said documentary evidence,” the court said.