SC reverses Imelda’s conviction for graft

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) has overturned the conviction by the Sandiganbayan of former first lady Imelda Marcos on seven counts of graft involving her alleged financial interests in private foundations in Switzerland.

In a 50-page ruling penned by Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda, the SC’s First Division acquitted Marcos after the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 3(h) of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in relation to Article IX, Section 8 of the 1973 Constitution.

The cases stemmed from allegations that Marcos, while serving as governor of Metro Manila and holding other government positions during the administration of her husband, president Ferdinand Marcos Sr., maintained financial interests in several private foundations based in Switzerland.

The SC found inadmissible as evidence the Swiss documents that were the main basis of the prosecution’s allegation that Marcos had a financial and pecuniary interest in the foundations.

It said the Sandiganbayan erred in considering the documents as authenticated, as these did not satisfy provisions under Rule 132 of the Rules of Court in the authentication of private documents.

The high tribunal said the documents were found to not have been properly authenticated as the prosecution was not able to present any credible witness who could have attested to the genuineness and due execution of the documents.

Moreover, the documents, apart from being inadmissible, lack probative value, the SC said, as the contents are “hearsay” since the witnesses presented by the prosecution to identify them are “incompetent to testify on their veracity.”

The SC said the prosecution likewise failed to prove the alleged financial or pecuniary interest of Marcos in the foundations, as it did not establish that the subject foundations are businesses.

It said any financial or pecuniary interest in the subject foundations is “not covered” by the Section 3(h) of the RA 3019 and Article IX, Section 7 of the 1973 Constitution.

The SC said that while it can allow the relaxation of the rules in the interest of substantial justice, it cannot be done at the expense of the substantive rights of the accused.

“The rules on the sufficiency of allegations in the Information and the admissibility and probative weight of evidence, in so far as they may cause injury to the substantive rights of the accused, cannot be casually brushed aside by the invocation of substantial justice and public interest,” the ruling read.

The ruling effectively set aside the Sandiganbayan’s 2018 ruling that found Marcos, who turned 97 last July, guilty of seven counts of graft, sentencing her from six years and one month to 11 years of imprisonment for each count.

The anti-graft court also ordered her perpetual disqualification from public office.