The Sandiganbayan has denied the movement of the Marcos household to take management anew of property earlier forfeited in favor of the nationwide authorities, surrendered by compromise agreements or thought of frozen accounts.
The decision, promulgated on January 25, 2023 by the Sandiganbayan Third Division, was in response to the Omnibus Motion filed on August 10, 2022 and in complement to the Omnibus Motion filed on August 17, 2022 by former first woman Imelda Romualdez Marcos and her daughter Irene Marcos-Araneta.
The movement hunted for the issuance of the writ of execution beneath the Revised Rules of Court on the properties denominated as frozen accounts, surrendered by advantage of compromise agreements, sequestered (however) not within the PCGG (Presidential Commission on Good Government) custody, and sequestered beneath the PCGG’s management and supervision.
The antigraft courtroom mentioned it denied the plea for writ of execution of the Marcoses “for lack of merit.” It additionally sought to “clarify” the standing of some property and properties pertinent to the case.
“(T)he Court dismissed the Third Amended Complaint with respect to the properties that ‘have already been recovered by the government or transferred to third persons not involved herein.’ or those which have been the subject of Court decisions and compromise agreements as the same were barred by res judicata under its second concept, i.e., conclusiveness of judgment and mootness. Thus, the Court can no longer rule on the said properties,” the Sandiganbayan mentioned.
“What remains to be determined, however, is the list of properties which are included in the dismissal of the Third Amended Complaint for failure of the plaintiff to prove its allegations by preponderance of evidence,” it added.
GMA News Online has sought remark from Malacañang and from the workplace of Senator Imee Marcos however has but to obtain a reply as of posting time.
Subject to the finality of the choice, the courtroom, in the meantime lifted the sequestration orders earlier issued on at the least 14 properties. It additionally acknowledged the properties with out sequestration orders and people who stay beneath the complete management and supervision of the defendants.
The ruling was penned by Associate Justice Michael Frederick Musngi with the concurrence of Associate Justices Maria Theresa Mendoza-Arcega and Maryann Corpus-Manalac.
In their movement, the Marcoses requested for a writ of execution of their property “considering that there was allegedly no evidence that this trust account was ill-gotten.”
Citing a Court of Appeals ruling, they maintained that “they have a good and valid reason for execution on the ground that the case was decided only after more than three decades and as a consequence, the defendants have suffered greatly, mentally and emotionally, and the dissipation of seized properties causing unjust and unreasonable deprivation of their proprietary rights.”
They additionally mentioned that they didn’t give consent with respect to the compromise agreements on the surrendered property.
“As to the sequestered assets, the defendants maintain that the PCGG only exercises powers of administration over the properties and never acquired ownership of the same. They allege that the PCGG has not offered an explanation on why some of the sequestered properties are not in their custody,” the decision mentioned.
In response, the antigraft courtroom mentioned that whereas the attraction was “timely in the instant case,” the prayer for the issuance of a writ of execution “cannot prosper as the judgment or order that disposes of the action is not yet final.”
“The fact that more than three decades have passed before the said case was decided is not a good reason considering that numerous factors have contributed to said length of period, which even includes the acquisition of jurisdiction over the defendants on different dates, the inclusion of additional defendants after the admission of the Second and Third Amended Complaints, and the filing of numerous motions and petitions, among others. The defendants also offered no proof or reason how the properties subject of this case are being dissipated,” the Sandiganbayan mentioned. —LDF/NB/KG, GMA Integrated News
Source: www.gmanetwork.com
