R1-B case vs Tantocos, Marcoses junked
Sandiganbayan cites PCGG’s insufficient evidence
The Sandiganbayan Second Division has dismissed the 11.052-billion civil case filed against Rustan’s Group of Company (RGC) owners Bienvenido Tantoco Sr. and Gliceria Tantoco, as well as the late President Ferdinand Marcos and his wife, Imelda, due to insufficiency of evidence.
Civil Case No. 0008 was filed based on the complaint for Reconveyance, Reversion, Accounting, Restitution, and Damages on March 18, 1988 by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG).
Aside from the Tantocos and Marcoses, included in the civil case are Maria Lourdes Tantoco-Pineda, and Dominador Santiago.
“The plaintiff (PCGG) was not able to prove by preponderance of evidence that defendants Tantocos, TantocoPineda, Tantoco Jr., and Santiago by themselves and/or in unlawful concert with the defendants Marcoses collaborated in ‘schemes, devices, and stratagems’ to appropriate and conceal the ownership of ille
gally obtained assets,” the decision read.
“Plaintiff failed to prove that defendant Tantoco Sr. acquired assets, funds and other property grossly and manifestly disproportionate to his salaries, lawful income, and income from legitimately acquired property when he served as public officer during the Marcos administration,” the court ruled.
“There is likewise insufficient evidence to prove that the defendants acted as dummies, nominees, and/or agents of defendants Marcoses in acquiring works of art, clothes, jewelry, or real estate worth billions of pesos,” it added.
The PCGG had sought the recovery of ill-gotten wealth involving residential lands in Honolulu, Hawaii, and Makati City, as well as a house and lot in Via Appia, Rome, expensive jewelry, notes and mortgages receivables, motor vehicles, and aircraft like the Cessna Citation S550, Cessna Model 421 and 441.
Also included are shares of stocks in Tourist Duty Free Shops, Inc. and Hari-Raya Coffee Shops, Inc., Rustan Commercial Corporation, Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines, Sanmar Export Corporation, Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation, and Philippine Eagle Mines, Inc., among many others.
The alleged ill-gotten wealth were reportedly acquired during the term of Marcos from December 30, 1965 to February 1986.
The PCGG claimed that the defendant Tantocos and Marcoses, in unlawful concert with one another, constituted gross abuse of official position and authority while the other defendants acted as “dummies” in the acquisition of unexplained wealth.
The respondents acquired the franchise to exclusively manage and operate tourist duty-free shops at international airports, hotels, and commercial centers by securing presidential approval, and they were supposed to pay only a minimal franchise tax of seven percent of the gross income. This was even shared with the Nutrition Center for the Philippines with Imelda as president, the Manila Seedling Bank, with Bienvenido Tantoco Jr. as president, as well as the Mount Samat Reforestation Project.
Out of the seven percent, only two percent really went to the government coffers. The five percent became the “petty cash” of Imelda since these were reportedly funneled to her private foundations.
They also procured almost unlimited duty-free importation benefits and manipulated importations by mere Draft Acceptances in excess of the amounts allowed by the Central Bank.
However, the anti-graft court ruled that the totality of the prosecution’s evidence failed to prove the allegations of the PCGG. The prosecution only presented four witnesses before the court before waiving further presentation of evidence due to non-appearance of PCGG lawyers.
The letters presented by the prosecution from the Commission on Audit (COA), Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), and Bureau of Customs (BOC) only pertain to alleged tax deficiencies. The letters do not prove how the defendants are “dummies” of the Marcoses in the operation of duty-free shops, and their participation in securing the presidential decree was not established.
The court likewise denied the admission of several exhibits for being mere photocopies, which is in violation of the Best Evidence Rule.
As for the testimonies of the witnesses, the court further deemed that it had no “relevance” to the admitted documents.
The 30-page decision was written by Associate Justice Michael Frederick Musngi with the concurrence of Chairperson Oscar Herrera Jr. and Associate Justice Lorifel Pahimna.