19-7-2023 (MANILA) On Wednesday, the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Sandiganbayan to dismiss a civil forfeiture case amounting to P1.052 billion against the family of President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. and their alleged associates, citing a lack of evidence.
The anti-graft court’s decision in September 2019 was affirmed by the Supreme Court, stating that “the complaint for insufficient evidence was dismissed without any reversible error committed by the anti-graft court.”
The civil forfeiture case, registered as Civil Case No. 0008 and initially filed by the Presidential Commission on Good Government in 1987, aimed to recover alleged ill-gotten wealth amounting to P1.052 billion, consisting of P609.27 million in shares of stocks and P443.05 million in real estate properties, from former first lady Imelda Marcos, late dictator Ferdinand Marcos Sr., and their alleged cronies Bienvenido Tantoco Sr., Bienvenido Tantoco Jr., the estate of Gliceria Tantoco, and Dominador Santiago.
The PCGG also demanded P50 billion in moral damages and P1 billion in exemplary damages, as well as temperate damages, nominal damages, and other legal expenses from the Marcoses and their co-defendants.
The lawsuit claimed that Dominador Santiago, the owner of Tourist Duty Free Shops Inc. (TDFS), utilized the company to obtain beneficial government deals for the Marcos spouses and their associates, such as tax exemptions and operating franchises in international airports. The PCGG asserted that the Tantocos and Santiago acted as agents for the Marcoses, facilitating the unlawful acquisition of personal assets such as artwork, clothing, jewelry, and real estate properties in New York.
However, the Sandiganbayan invalidated the PCGG’s claims in November 2019, stating that most of the documents submitted were photocopies without proof of the original documents, which violated the Best Evidence Rule.
The Supreme Court stated in its decision that “petitioner’s evidence is insufficient to support the allegations of its Expended Complaint by a preponderance of evidence,” and while it is “truly disappointing that nothing has come of this case despite the lapse of 36 years spent in litigation, the Court agrees with the Sandiganbayan.”
