P102-B forfeiture case vs

Marcos, pals junked

MANILA, Philippines — The Sandiganbayan’s Second Division has dismissed
a P102-billion forfeiture case filed 32 years ago against the family of dictator
Ferdinand Marcos and their cronies due to missing original copies of key
documentary evidence.

The antigraft court said the Presidential Commission on Good Government

(PCGG), the agency in charge of recovering the dictator’s ill-gotten wealth and
the plaintiff in the case, failed to prove its allegations that officials of
Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), acting on orders of the
Marcoses, extended loans to various shipping companies held by Marcos
cronies.

CASE DISMISSED The Sandiganbayan’s Second Division threw out a P102-

billion forfeiture case against dictator Ferdinand Marcos and his widow,
Imelda, and chastised the Presidential Commission on Good Government for
presenting mere photocopies of crucial documents as evidence to prove that
the couple deposited “purloined funds” to their overseas bank accounts. —
INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines — The Sandiganbayan’s Second Division has dismissed
a P102-billion forfeiture case filed 32 years ago against the family of dictator
Ferdinand Marcos and their cronies due to missing original copies of key
documentary evidence.

The antigraft court said the Presidential Commission on Good Government

(PCGG), the agency in charge of recovering the dictator’s ill-gotten wealth and
the plaintiff in the case, failed to prove its allegations that officials of
Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), acting on orders of the
Marcoses, extended loans to various shipping companies held by Marcos
cronies.

“Plaintiff miserably failed to adduce evidence to hold defendants Ferdinand E.

Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos liable. It saddens the court that it took more
than 30 years before this case is submitted for decision and yet, the
prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain any of the causes
of action,” read the 67-page decision.
The court’s Aug. 5 ruling on Civil Case No. 0034 was made public on
Wednesday. It was written by Associate Justice Lorifel L. Pahimna, with the
concurrence of Associate Justices Oscar C. Herrera Jr. and Michael Frederick
L. Musngi.

Benedicto companies

The original complaint filed by the PCGG on July 31, 1987, alleged that
businessman and Marcos crony Roberto S. Benedicto took advantage of his
connections to the dictator and his wife in order to obtain hundreds of millions
of pesos in loans and guarantees for several of his companies.

These companies included Molave Bulk Carriers Inc., Aklan Bulk Carriers Inc.,
Fuga Bulk Carriers Inc., Coron Bulk Carriers Inc. and Ecija Bulk Carriers Inc.,
which handled freight contracts for sugar, fertilizers and other import cargoes.

Benedicto and the other accused also allegedly appropriated revenue derived
from the operations of RPN 9, IBC 13 and BBC 2 for their own benefit and
“unjust enrichment.”

The PCGG said the Marcos couple allowed their cronies to hold and launder
“purloined funds” for and in their behalf prior to remittance and credit to their
overseas or foreign bank accounts. They also participated in the
establishment of California Overseas Bank, it said.

Also named in the lawsuit were Jose R. Tengco Jr., Placido L. Mapa, Rafael
Sison, Cesar C. Zalamea, Don Ferry, Ramon Monzon, Generosa C. Olazo,
Cynthia Cheong, Ma. Luisa E. Nograles, Leopoldo Vergara, Jose L. Africa and
Rodolfo Arambulo.

Compromise agreement

But in November 1990, or 10 years before his death, Benedicto entered into a
compromise agreement with the PCGG that granted him, members of his
family, officers and employees of his corporations absolute immunity from suit
in exchange for ceding various properties to the government, including radio
and television companies, real estate assets, and shares in various
corporations worth a total of P3.251 billion.

That agreement was approved by the Sandiganbayan on Oct. 2, 1992, and

affirmed by the Supreme Court on Sept. 10, 1993.

Citing the agreement, the administrator of Benedicto’s estate said the PCGG
had agreed to withdraw its cases against the late Marcos crony in exchange
for the full takeover of California Overseas Bank, shares in Oriental Petroleum
and the management of the Broadcast City facility.

In dismissing the case, the antigraft court said there was not enough evidence
to hold the Marcoses liable since the PCGG only provided photocopies of
several documents that could have connected the Marcos couple to the ill-
gotten wealth, including photocopies of Resolution No. 2125 by the Board of
Governors of DBP approving a foreign loan of $32.7 million in favor of the
Ecija, Fuga, Aklan, and Coron bulk carriers on July 26, 1978.

Likewise, documents, that supposedly proved Marcos had used California

Overseas Bank as a conduit, were mere photocopies whose authenticity could
not be guaranteed.
The articles of incorporation of California Overseas Bank, its bylaws, letter
dated June 10, 1996, of the superintendent of banks, State of California, and
approval to acquire dated June 9, 1996, also could not be authenticated.

The Sandiganbayan chastised the PCGG for presenting weak evidence.

“In civil cases, the party making allegations has the burden of proving them by
a preponderance of evidence. In addition, the parties must rely on the strength
of their own evidence, not upon the weakness of the defense offered by their
opponent,” the court said.