The Sandiganbayan has dismissed the ill-gotten wealth case filed towards the late president Ferdinand Marcos, his spouse Imelda Marcos and their associates as a result of failure of the prosecution “to prove its allegations by preponderance of evidence.”
“A judicious perusal of the evidence on record shows that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently prove the allegations in its amended complaint. In particular, the plaintiff failed to establish that the subject properties were ill-gotten,” the antigraft court docket’s Second Division stated in its ruling launched on Tuesday.
The 45-page decision was signed by Associate Justice Arthur Malabaguio and concurred in by Associate Justices Oscar Herrera Jr. an Edgardo Caldona.
Civil Case No. 0014, filed in 1987, seeks and forfeiture and restoration of sure belongings and properties owned by Modesto Enriquez, Trinidad Diaz-Enriquez, Rebecco Panlilio, Erlinda Enriquez-Panlilio, Leandro Enriquez, Don Ferry, Roman Cruz Jr. and Gregorio Castillo, all of whom have been alleged dummies or associates of the Marcoses.
The case alleged that the Marcoses and others accused “in unlawful concert and conspiracy with one another, acquired and accumulated with grave abuse of right and power at the expense” of the federal government.
The firms embody the Ternate Development Corp., Monte Sol Development Corporation, Olas del Mar Development Corporation, Fantasia Filipina Resort, Inc., Sulo Dobbs, Inc., Philippine Village, Inc., Silahis International Hotel, Inc., Hotel Properties, Inc., Puerto Azul Beach and Country Club, and Philroad Construction Corporation.
In its choice, the Sandiganbayan stated “nothing on the face of these documents” introduced by the prosecution earlier than the court docket “shows that Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos had any interest or control over the subject corporations.”
The testimony of the prosecution’s sole witness, the information custodian of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), was allotted with after it was decided that she had no private data on the veracity of the paperwork introduced in court docket.
The court docket additionally famous that “the bulk of the documentary evidence presented by the plaintiff are mere photocopies of the of the documents in custody of the PCGG, most of which are barely readable.”
The court docket added that the Revised Rules of Evidence requires that the identical “should abide by the Best Evidence Rule,” which states that “original documents must be produced” aside from some circumstances.
“Notwithstanding plaintiff’s failure to abide by the Best Evidence Rule, plaintiff’s testimonial and documentary evidence should still be rejected for being hearsay and uncorroborated by evidence,” it stated.
“This is fatal to the plaintiff’s cause,” the Sandiganbayan added.—Llanesca Panti/ LDF, GMA Integrated News
Source: www.gmanetwork.com
