Wealth forfeiture case vs 20 Marcos ‘dummies’ junked

MANILA, Philippines — The Sandiganbayan has dismissed the wealth forfeiture case against several alleged cronies of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos and his widow, former first lady Imelda Marcos, for lack of proof that they acted as dummies of the former first couple in a corporation allegedly illegally acquired during martial law.

“The Court finds it unfortunate that despite the length of time that this case has been pending, and the vast resources of the government to pursue cases of ill-gotten wealth, the plaintiff miserably failed to prove the allegations in the complaint,” the anti-graft court’s Fourth Division said in its 38-page decision promulgated on July 29.

The court specifically dismissed the complaint with prayer for forfeiture or reconveyance filed by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) against the individual minor shareholders of Eastern Telecommunications Philippines Inc. (ETPI), a corporation allegedly illegally acquired by the Marcoses and their supposed cronies during martial law.

“Absent evidence proving that the defendants’ ETPI shares of stocks originated from the government and that they were registered in their names to conceal their true ownership, the Court cannot order their reconveyance, restitution or forfeiture in favor of the plaintiff (Republic of the Philippines),” the decision, penned by Associate Justice Lorifel Pahimna, read.

Associate Justices Michael Frederick Musngi and Gener Gito concurred with the ruling.

Filed by the PCGG in October 1997, the forfeiture suit – docketed as Civil Case No. 0178 – seeks to recover in favor of the government 3,305 shares of stock in ETPI held by more than 20 individual shareholders.

The PCGG, represented in court by the Office of the Solicitor-General (OSG), said the shares were held in trust for the Marcos couple but were registered in the names of their supposed cronies, dummies or business associates.

The Fourth Division had earlier dismissed, for lack of evidence, the complaint against some of the defendants including Pablo Lobregat, Angela Lobregat, Rosario Arellano, Victoria Legarda, Benito Nieto, Carlos Nieto, Manuel Nieto III, Ma. Rita Delos Reyes, Carmen Tuazon and Ramon Nieto Jr. as well as the legal representatives of the deceased defendants Ramon Nieto, Benigno Manuel Valdes and Rafael Valdes.

In latest decision, the Fourth Division dismissed the complaint in its entirety, effectively clearing the remaining defendants: Andres Africa, Victor Africa, Lourdes Africa, Nathalie Africa, Jose Enrique Africa, Paul Delfin Africa, Juan de Ocampo, Racquel Dinglasan, Evelyn Romero and Rosario Songco.

Just like in its previous ruling, the Fourth Division maintained that the PCGG failed to present any evidence or witnesses that would prove that the respondents’ ETPI shares were ill-gotten or that the funds used to acquire their shares belonged to the government or to any government banks or financial institutions.

Furthermore, the Fourth Division said the PCGG also failed to prove that the defendants were merely holding their ETPI shares in trust for the benefit of the Marcos family or of the Marcos spouses’ close business associates, Jose L. Africa and Manuel H. Nieto.

The Fourth Division said that while the Sandiganbayan Third Division, in its decision promulgated on Dec. 4, 2019, awarded to the government about P2.756 billion worth of supposed “ill-gotten” stocks in ETPI under the names of Jose Africa, Manuel Nieto Jr. and the Aerocom Investors and Managers Inc., that decision was not binding to another court division handling a complaint against a separate set of defendants.

The Fourth Division pointed out that Civil Case No. 0178 was filed in 1997 precisely to cover some other registered owners of the ETPI shares not impleaded in Civil Case No. 0009 filed in 1987.

“The Court has no basis to rely, and neither can nor should it, on the proceedings and conclusions reached in Civil Case No. 0009 in resolving the instant case without itself being guilty of violating the constitutional guarantee of due process,” the Fourth Division said.

Wealth forfeiture case vs 20 Marcos ‘dummies’ junked

Marcelo

MANILA, Philippines — The Sandiganbayan has dismissed the wealth forfeiture case against several alleged cronies of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos and his widow, former first lady Imelda Marcos, for lack of proof that they acted as dummies of the former first couple in a corporation allegedly illegally acquired during martial law.

“The Court finds it unfortunate that despite the length of time that this case has been pending, and the vast resources of the government to pursue cases of ill-gotten wealth, the plaintiff miserably failed to prove the allegations in the complaint,” the anti-graft court’s Fourth Division said in its 38-page decision promulgated on July 29.

The court specifically dismissed the complaint with prayer for forfeiture or reconveyance filed by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) against the individual minor shareholders of Eastern Telecommunications Philippines Inc. (ETPI), a corporation allegedly illegally acquired by the Marcoses and their supposed cronies during martial law.

“Absent evidence proving that the defendants’ ETPI shares of stocks originated from the government and that they were registered in their names to conceal their true ownership, the Court cannot order their reconveyance, restitution or forfeiture in favor of the plaintiff (Republic of the Philippines),” the decision, penned by Associate Justice Lorifel Pahimna, read.

Associate Justices Michael Frederick Musngi and Gener Gito concurred with the ruling.

Filed by the PCGG in October 1997, the forfeiture suit – docketed as Civil Case No. 0178 – seeks to recover in favor of the government 3,305 shares of stock in ETPI held by more than 20 individual shareholders.

The PCGG, represented in court by the Office of the Solicitor-General (OSG), said the shares were held in trust for the Marcos couple but were registered in the names of their supposed cronies, dummies or business associates.

The Fourth Division had earlier dismissed, for lack of evidence, the complaint against some of the defendants including Pablo Lobregat, Angela Lobregat, Rosario Arellano, Victoria Legarda, Benito Nieto, Carlos Nieto, Manuel Nieto III, Ma. Rita Delos Reyes, Carmen Tuazon and Ramon Nieto Jr. as well as the legal representatives of the deceased defendants Ramon Nieto, Benigno Manuel Valdes and Rafael Valdes.

In latest decision, the Fourth Division dismissed the complaint in its entirety, effectively clearing the remaining defendants: Andres Africa, Victor Africa, Lourdes Africa, Nathalie Africa, Jose Enrique Africa, Paul Delfin Africa, Juan de Ocampo, Racquel Dinglasan, Evelyn Romero and Rosario Songco.

Just like in its previous ruling, the Fourth Division maintained that the PCGG failed to present any evidence or witnesses that would prove that the respondents’ ETPI shares were ill-gotten or that the funds used to acquire their shares belonged to the government or to any government banks or financial institutions.

Furthermore, the Fourth Division said the PCGG also failed to prove that the defendants were merely holding their ETPI shares in trust for the benefit of the Marcos family or of the Marcos spouses’ close business associates, Jose L. Africa and Manuel H. Nieto.

The Fourth Division said that while the Sandiganbayan Third Division, in its decision promulgated on Dec. 4, 2019, awarded to the government about P2.756 billion worth of supposed “ill-gotten” stocks in ETPI under the names of Jose Africa, Manuel Nieto Jr. and the Aerocom Investors and Managers Inc., that decision was not binding to another court division handling a complaint against a separate set of defendants.

The Fourth Division pointed out that Civil Case No. 0178 was filed in 1997 precisely to cover some other registered owners of the ETPI shares not impleaded in Civil Case No. 0009 filed in 1987.

“The Court has no basis to rely, and neither can nor should it, on the proceedings and conclusions reached in Civil Case No. 0009 in resolving the instant case without itself being guilty of violating the constitutional guarantee of due process,” the Fourth Division said.