Sandiganbayan junks ill-gotten wealth case vs. Marcos 'associates' over telco shares

Due to the lack of evidence, the Sandiganbayan has dismissed the ill-gotten wealth case against the alleged associates of the late President Ferdinand Marcos Sr. and his wife Imelda Romualdez Marcos.

The case involved the 3,305 Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (ETPI) shares, which were allegedly held for the Marcos couple by their associates.

In a 19-page Resolution dated January 10, the anti-graft court dismissed the case against the Nieto group largely because the prosecution only presented one unqualified witness to testify on the contents of the original copy of documents showing that Marcos couple’s associate Roberto Benedicto received a P15 million cheque.

The cheque was for deposit from the late president dated April 29, 1974.  Of the amount, P1.8 million constituted the initial subscription of Benedicto, Jose Africa, and Manuel Nieto, Jr., which represented 60% of ETPI's initial capitalization as reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Members of the Nieto group cleared of the charges include Rosario Arellano, Victoria Legarda, Angela Lobregat, Benito Nieto, Carlos Nieto, Manuel Nieto III, Ma. Rita Delos Reyes, Carmen Tuason, Ramon Nieto Jr., (the legal representative of the deceased Ramon Nieto) and, Benigno Manuel Valdes, (the legal representative of the deceased Rafael Valdes).

The said lone prosecution witness was Presidential Commission on Good Government records custodian Maria Lourdes Magno.

“Out of the intended nine, plaintiff (government prosecutors) managed to present only one witness in the person of Maria Lourdes Magno whose supposed testimony centered on the existence of the original and certified true copies of the exhibits in her custody as the record custodian. However, the credibility of the witness was watered down with the stipulation entered into the parties that she has no personal knowledge of the truth and veracity of its contents,” the Sandiganbayan said.

“What perplexed this Court is the fact that as early as 2012, the plaintiff is deemed to have judicial knowledge of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court regarding the testimony of Maria Lourdes Magno. There is no question that Ms. Magno can testify as to the existence of Exhibits "E" to "L", the original thereof being in her official custody. However, Ms. Magno is incompetent to testify on the contents of the documents under her custody which is the very subject of inquiry in this case,” the anti-graft court added.

“The Court cannot simply take, hook, line and sinker, the innuendo baited by the plaintiff. The narration of grand scheme or design to perpetrate fraud to amass ill-gotten wealth by the Marcoses using the defendants as dummies alleged in the complaint without one-on-one correspondent with any documentary and testimonial is too good to be true,” the Sandiganbayan said.

“The evidence presented cannot be construed, by any stretch of imagination, to have emanated from herein defendants themselves manifesting their participation in illegal use of government money to fund their acquisition of shares of stock of ETPI. In short, the plaintiff failed to substantiate its allegation that herein defendants Nieto group knowingly allowed themselves to be used as dummies of Manuel Nieto and/ or spouses Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos in acquiring ETPI shares of stocks without lawful consideration,” the Sandiganbayan added.

Government prosecutors argued that then President Marcos’ issuance of Presidential Decree 489 granting franchise to ETPI on May 30, 1974, followed by registration of ETPI’s Articles of Incorporation before the SEC on June 10, 1974 and the P1.8 million initial capitalization of ETPI already show that Presidential Decree 489 is part of a scheme to amass ill-gotten wealth, as defined in the PCGG rules and regulations.

“The Supreme Court has taken judicial notice of the fact that the late President Marcos, his family, relatives, and close associates 'resorted to all sorts of clever schemes and manipulations to disguise and hide their illicit acquisitions',” the government prosecutors said.

The Sandiganbayan, however, was not convinced.

“We have thoroughly reviewed the records and are convinced that petitioners have failed to sufficiently prove their allegations. Despite the protracted opportunity afforded, the sum of the plaintiff evidence failed to preponderate to their favor,” the Sandiganbayan said.

”This Court finds that the pieces of evidence offered by plaintiff vis-à-vis the shares of stock of defendant Nieto group in ETPI are insufficient to support the allegations of the complaint for Accounting, Reconveyance, Forfeiture, Restitution, and Damages. Wherefore, the Demurrer to Evidence filed by defendant Nieto group is granted," it said.

" Accordingly, the case against defendants Rosario N. Arellano, Victoria N. Legarda, Angela N. Lobregat, Benito V. Nieto, Carlos V. Nieto, Manuel V. Nieto III, Ma. Rita N. Delos Reyes, Carmen N. Tuason, Ramon Nieto, Jr., the legal representative of the deceased Ramon V. Nieto, and Benigno Manuel Valdes, the legal representative of the deceased Rafael C. Valdes is hereby dismissed,” the anti-graft court added.

In June 2023, the Sandiganbayan denied the government prosecutors' bid to present new witnesses in Civil Case 0178 lieu of the inital witnesses who were already unavailable. 

The said court ruling called out the government prosecutors for inability to locate its witnesses after a period of 26 years, saying such demonstrates their complacent attitude or lack of due diligence in pursuing the present case.

In March 2020, court records also revealed that the Office of the Solicitor General then led by Jose Calida has left the Civil Case 0178 unattended for the past one year and two months. 

“On September 28, 2018, the Court issued an Order granting the said motion, suspending the preliminary conference for 60 days, and ordering the plaintiff to make the proper legal action on the matter. However, to date, the plaintiff has failed to inform this Court of the necessary legal action it has undertaken,” the Sandiganbayan said in its Resolution then.—LDF, GMA Integrated News