By Moira Encina
Eagle News Service
The Supreme Court has upheld the Sandiganbayan’s junking of the ill-gotten wealth case filed by the Presidential Commission on Good Government against former President Ferdinand Marcos, his wife Imelda, and his alleged cronies.
In upholding the anti-graft court’s August 5, 2010 ruling against the Marcoses, construction magnate Rodolfo Cuenca, Manuel Tinio, Victor Africa, Roberto Cuenca, Mario Alfelor, Don Ferry and Oscar Beltran, the SC’s First Division said the “Republic failed to prove that the respondents by themselves or in unlawful concert with another, accumulated or participated in the accumulation of ill-gotten wealth in so far as the specific allegations in the subject complaint are concerned.”
The PCGG specifically filed a complaint for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages against the respondents, who it alleged to have conspired to amass the ill-gotten wealth through the Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines, among others.
According to the First Division, “no error should be attributed to the Sandiganbayan when it dismissed the Republic’s complaint for insufficiency of evidence.”
It said that in the first place, “in order to determine the veracity of the Republic’s main contention that it has established a prima facie case against respondents through its documentary and testimonial evidence, a reassessment and reexamination of the evidence is necessary.”
“Unfortunately, the limited and discretionary judicial review allowed under Rule 45 does not envision a re-evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which respondent court’s action was predicated,” the First Division said.
The First Division also noted that despite the Republic’s “knowledge of the existence and whereabouts of” the originals of pertinent documents to their case, it “still failed to present the same and contented itself with the presentation of mere photocopies.”
“It bears stressing that it is upon the Republic to prove the allegations in the complaint. It is therefore imperative that the operative act on how and in what manner the respondents participated in amassing ill-gotten wealth be demonstrated through preponderance of evidence. In case of failure to do so, the Republic’s complaint will merit nothing but denial,” the division said.
