The Sandiganbayan has upheld its December 2019 decision ordering associates of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos to return assets off their shares in Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (ETPI) to the Philippine government for being ill-gotten.
In a 45-page resolution on Civil Case 0009 dated September 22 on motion for partial reconsideration filed by the heirs of Jose Africa, the Sandiganbayan Third Division said there is preponderance of evidence that the ETPI shares of the defendant-movants substituted by the heirs of Africa, of Polygon, and the individual shareholders are ill-gotten wealth of defendant Ferdinand Marcos.
Specifically, the said ill-gotten wealth case covers the ETPI shares of defendants Africa, Manuel Nieto Jr. acquired on June 10, 1974; as well as those of Polygon Investors and Managers, Inc.; and Aerocom Investors and Managers, Inc., namely:
- Victor Africa
- Lourdes Africa
- Natalie Africa
- Lourdes Africa
- Jose Enrique Africa
- Lourdes Africa
- Paul Delfin Africa
- Rosario Songco
- Raquel Dinglasari
- Manuel Nieto III
- Ramon Nieto
- Victoria Legarda
- Ma. Rita Delos Reyes
- Rosario Arellano
- Angela Lobregat
- Benito Nieto
- Carlos Nieto
- Carmen Tuazon and
- Rafael Valdes.
The assets were transferred to them by defendants Jose Africa and Manuel Nieto Jr.
“As the Republic correctly avers, ill-gotten wealth includes the properties and assets subject of this case considering that they have been acquired by defendants in unlawful concert with one another, resulting in their unjust enrichment during Ferdinand Marcos's 20-year rule. Defendants, in unlawful concert with each other, engaged in devices, schemes and strategies for their mutual benefit and unjust enrichment,” the anti-graft court pointed out.
The anti graft court, citing three Supreme Court rulings on ill-gotten wealth cases, noted that an asset can also be considered as ill-gotten if it was acquired by a public official by taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence resulting in unjust enrichment of the ostensible owner irrespective of its source or origin.
“To limit the coverage of the source of ill-gotten wealth exclusively to public funds or property will render the other means or schemes of acquiring ill-gotten wealth completely nugatory and there by unduly frustrate the legitimate efforts of the State to recover unlawfully acquired wealth,” the Sandiganbayan said.
“It would be incomprehensible to exclude assets and properties which the defendants acquired by means of taking undue advantage of their office, authority, influence, connections or relationship on the premise that they did not originate from the vast resources of the government,” the anti-graft court added.
Likewise, the Sandiganbayan said that defendant Jose Africa blatantly abused his right when he willingly and knowingly acted as dummy of Marcos in acquiring sixty percent of the shares of stock in the ETPI.
“Defendant Africa was not a public officer at the time material to this case. However, he willingly and knowingly acted as dummy in acquiring 60% of the shares in the ETPI on behalf of defendant Marcos to the prejudice of the Filipino people. The said act manifests bad faith on the part of defendant Africa,” the anti-graft court said.
“This constituted a blatant abuse of right which renders him jointly liable for the return of the assets illegally acquired by defendant Marcos, through his knowing participation,” the anti-graft court added.
The Sendiganbayan, however, partially granted the Africas’ partial appeal by deleting a provision in its December 2019 decision ordering the substituted heirs of Africa and Nieto to jointly pay P1 million worth of exemplary damages to the Philippine government.
“As to the award of exemplary damages, the New Civil Code provides that exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. In this case, the Court found that there was no basis for the award of either moral damages or temperate damages,” the anti-graft court said.
“In sum, except for the deletion of the award of exemplary damages in favor of the Republic, neither the Republic nor defendants substituted heirs of Jose L. Africa has presented any new or valid argument/ s to warrant the reversal of the Court's Decision promulgated on December 4, 2019," the anti-graft court added.—AOL, GMA News
