ON NOVEMBER 9, 2018, the Sandiganbayan convicted former First Lady Imelda Romualdez Marcos — mother of the sitting president — of seven counts of graft for her alleged financial interest in Swiss foundations.
But the Supreme Court First Division on June 10 overturned the graft court’s conviction of Mrs. Marcos, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The SC’s ruling was released only yesterday (Wednesday).
The decision, penned by Associate Justice Rodil Alameda, found serious evidentiary and legal flaws in the prosecution’s case, particularly its reliance on Swiss documents that were not properly authenticated, according to a report of the Manila Times.
The court said private documents generally cannot be admitted as evidence unless their authenticity is established. It found that the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove the authenticity and evidentiary value of key documents used to link Marcos to the alleged financial interests.
The Court also rejected the Sandiganbayan’s characterization of the Swiss foundations as “businesses” covered by Section 3(h) of Republic Act 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The Sandiganbayan 5th Division had ruled that the foundations were used to open bank accounts, transfer funds and manage investments for the benefit of the Marcos family, effectively treating them as businesses.
The High Tribunal disagreed, saying the prosecution failed to establish under the applicable Swiss and Liechtenstein laws that the foundations were businesses within the meaning of the anti-graft law.
The Court noted that some of the foundations were established under Liechtenstein law, while the prosecution relied in part on a journal article discussing Swiss law.
It said the prosecution should have presented the applicable foreign laws and demonstrated how those laws applied to the foundations involved in the cases.
“Doubts on the coverage of the term ‘business’ should be resolved against the State and in favor of the accused-appellant,” the Court said.
The SC stressed that criminal convictions must rest on admissible and relevant evidence, and that the prosecution carries the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The seven cases involved allegations that Marcos maintained financial or pecuniary interests in private foundations in Switzerland and Liechtenstein while she was a public official.
The graft cases stemmed from complaints filed in 1991 when prosecutors alleged that the Marcos family channeled public funds into their personal accounts overseas.
Mrs. Marcos served as the Minister of Human Settlements and was a member of the Interim Batasan Pambansa during the late strongman’s rule from 1965 to 1986.
Her daughter, Sen. Imee Marcos, refused to comment on the ruling, saying she does not know what the decision says.
SC GETS BASHED
The August Twenty-One Movement criticized the Supreme Court’s decision, calling it a “disappointing day for justice and common decency.”
The SC has granted the appeal of former First Lady Imelda Marcos and acquitted her from her 2018 conviction on seven counts of graft, as the prosecution had “failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.”
Zalameda’s decision sets aside the anti-graft court’s ruling that had sentenced Mrs. Marcos to prison for six years and one month to 11 years for each count of graft and her perpetual disqualification to run for public office.
ATOM’s statement said: “For decades, Filipinos have looked to the Supreme Court as the last refuge where true and absolute justice can be obtained. Today, we were reminded that the shadow of the conjugal dictatorship never really left our government.”
“This mirrors the same Supreme Court that gave leeway to the dictator 54 years ago, when it did nothing to stop him from shackling this country after martial law was declared,” it added.
“Now, injustice has ‘blessed’ the other half of the Marcos dictatorship with this gift of dismissal.”
Last month, ATOM had refuted President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s claim that his family has no ill-gotten wealth, calling him a “purveyor” of false information, according to ABS-CBN News.
Marcos earlier said that he has not been updated on the supposed non-payment of his family’s estate taxes amounting to billions as he is occupied with his mandate as the chief executive.
He said the assets should not be called “ill gotten” as their victory in civil cases prove that the wealth was not illegally acquired.