Sandiganbayan dismisses 6 coco levy cases vs Marcos couple

The Sandiganbayan dismissed six ill-gotten wealth cases involving the coco levy fund against the late former President Ferdinand Marcos Sr.,  his wife Imelda Marcos, and their associates, citing the prior dismissal of identical cases against businessman Eduardo "Danding" Cojuangco Jr. by the Supreme Court.

In a 42-page resolution, the anti-graft court ruled that the 2021 Supreme Court decision clearing Cojuangco in cases 0033-B, 0033-C, 0033-D, 0033-E, 0033-G, and 0033-H established legal precedence under the doctrine of stare decisis, which mandates adherence to settled judicial rulings.

The court emphasized that it cannot re-litigate issues already resolved by the Supreme Court.

“The said doctrine is a bar to any attempt to re-litigate the same issue... The ruling of the Supreme Court regarding the burden of proof upon the plaintiff and the periods of delay in the case of Cojuangco v.  Sandiganbayan must be applied fully in the instant cases,” the Sandiganbayan explained.

The dismissed cases alleged that the Marcoses, Cojuangco, and others misused the coco levy fund to:

• create and operate companies, such as the Bugsuk Project;
• award P998 million in damages to Agricultural Investors Inc.;
• make disadvantageous purchases and settle oil mills' accounts;
• acquire Pepsi-Cola; and
• facilitate behest loans and contracts.

The government’s prosecution team failed to provide compelling arguments to differentiate these cases from the Supreme Court's 2021 ruling.

The Sandiganbayan also said that the decades-long delay was prejudicial to the defendants, noting the strain caused by the "interminable threat of prosecution" and its impact on resources, memories, and evidence.

“Defendants have continuously spent their resources on legal representation for more than three decades... It is inevitable for  defense witnesses’ memories to fade, or for crucial pieces of evidence  to be lost to the ravages of time.”

Furthermore, the plaintiff had shown no proof that the complexity of the issues and voluminous records could have reasonably and logically delayed their presentation of evidence for more than 20 years.

The court underscored that the prolonged pendency of cases did not serve justice, calling claims  that delays were beneficial or necessary “patently absurd.”

While acknowledging the gravity of the allegations, the Sandiganbayan held that justice cannot be served through unnecessary delays or redundant litigation. — DVM, GMA Integrated News