Why The Forfeiture Case Against The Marcoses, Benedicto et al. Took 30 Years

Filed by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) on July 31, 1987, the forfeiture case against the late former president Ferdinand Marcos, his wife Imelda and 11 of their supposed cronies stemmed from the alleged grant of excessive loans to several firms, particularly the shipping companies owned by the late ambassador Roberto Benedicto, during the Marcos regime.

“It saddens the court that it took more than 30 years before this case is submitted for decision and yet, the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain any of the causes of action against the remaining defendants,” the Aug. 5 ruling penned by Associate Justice Lorifel Pahimna read.

The PCGG did not specify in its complaint the total amount of public funds it was seeking to recover or to be forfeited from Benedicto and the Marcoses. But it asked for at least P102 billion in moral and exemplary damages as well as actual, temperate and nominal damages in sums left at the discretion of the court.

The Aug. 5 decision was the 20th civil forfeiture case against the Marcoses and their cronies dismissed by the anti-graft court. Data from the Sandiganbayan’s Judicial Records Division show that 21 more forfeiture cases against the Marcorses remain pending while one was ordered indefinitely archived.

So far, only one case, docketed as Civil Case No. 0033-F, was ruled in favor of the government. It involves the turnover to the state of P83 billion in assets acquired through the Coconut Industry Investment Fund (CIIF) or coco levy fund for the benefit of coconut farmers.

All the 43 cases were filed by the PCGG in 1987 or a year after the late dictator was ousted through a mass revolt.

A look into the Aug. 5 decision bared the reasons for the lengthy litigation process. Here are some of them:

It took the Marcoses eight years to answer the charges

While the charges against Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos and their co-defendants were filed on July 31, 1987, the couple refused to answer the charges. As such, on June 30, 1989, the court ordered a resolution declaring the Marcos couple in default for their failure to file an answer.

After Ferdinand died in Hawaii on Sept. 28, 1989, Imelda was left to face the charges alone. The court, in a resolution on Nov. 24, 1989, affirmed the declaration of default of the Marcos couple and on Dec. 5, 1989, it designated Imelda as the legal representative of her husband.

In a resolution on Oct. 26, 1992, the court lifted the order of default and Imelda was able to file her answer with counterclaim on Sept. 6, 1995.

Former first lady and Ilocos 

 Several parties moved to intervene as the case progressed

On Nov. 2, 1988, Holiday Inn Philippines Inc. filed a motion for intervention and complaint-in-intervention alleging that it has an existing Management Contract and Technical Assistance and Management Agreement with New Riviera Development Inc. Among the assets subjected to sequestration by the PCGG are Benedicto’s stockholdings in the latter company. Both the plaintiff and New Riviera Hotel and Development Co. filed oppositions to the motion. On Nov. 11, 1988, the court denied Holiday Inn’s motion, which the Supreme Court (SC) upheld on June 8, 1990.

Likewise, on Jan. 15, 1988, ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. (ABS-CBN), Chronicle Broadcasting Corp. (CBC) and Monserrat Broadcasting Corp. (MBC) filed a motion for leave to intervene as plaintiffs. The companies said they were among the victims of the unlawful acts allegedly committed by the defendants as described in the complaint. They also alleged that the defendants used their facilities as “instruments of oppression.” While the plaintiff, and 11 of the defendants, opposed the companies’ move (to which the companies filed a reply), the court initially granted the motion and admitted the complaint-in-intervention on June 3, 1988.

On Aug. 1, 1988, Vicenta Escaño-Moran, Russel Leo Moran, Robert Leo Moran and Susan Mary Moran, owners of Escaño Hermanos Inc. in Malaybalay, Bukidnon also moved to intervene in the case, with the intention of nullifying the sale and assignment of all of the company’s shares of stock to Marcos, Benedicto and others as well as the sale of a portion of land to Bukidnon Sugar Milling Co. Inc.

Universal Equity Corp. also moved to intervene in the case to recover an aircraft, which the PCGG allegedly sequestered wrongfully. The PCGG filed an opposition on April 10, 1992, but the court granted the motion to intervene on July 9, 1992.

The Department of Agrarian Reform filed a motion for leave to file complaint-in-intervention on July 4, 1995, to which Benedicto et al. filed an opposition on July 26, 1995. The court denied the motion of DAR to intervene on Oct. 25, 1995, for lack of merit.

Lawyers representing the Central Azucarera Don Pedro and San Carlos Milling Co. Inc., also filed a motion for leave to intervene and admit memorandum of intervention on Nov. 13, 1992. He raised the argument that by virtue of Republic Act 7202 or the Sugar Restitution Law, the sequestered assets, or a substantial portion of it, should be deemed to have been illegally taken from the sugar industry during the 10-year period provided in RA 7202, and therefore, should be distributed to the sugar producers on a pro rata basis. On Jan. 14, 1993, the court denied the motion to intervene for being moot and academic because of supervening events, which the SC sustained in a decision on Sept. 10, 1993.

Far East Managers and Investors Inc. (FEMII), which has corporate shareholdings in Radio Philippines Network Inc. or RPN 9, filed a motion for special intervention to join Benedicto’s motion for reconsideration on Feb. 20, 1998. The PCGG opposed the move and asked the court that all of FEMII’s corporate shareholdings in RPN 9 be excluded from those ordered for cancellation or cession to the PCGG. On July 30, 1999, the court denied FEMII’s motion, arguing that it was belatedly filed and not allowed by court rules.

The civil complaint stated that Benedicto unjustly enriched himself and the Marcoses with funds meant for the improvement of state broadcast networks RPN 9, International Broadcasting Corp. or IBC 13 and Banahaw Broadcasting Corp. or BBC-2.

Benedicto and PCGG entered into compromise agreement

While the case was pending in the court, the PCGG (then headed by David Castro) and Benedicto, et al. entered into a compromise agreement on Nov. 3, 1990, which they filed for the anti-graft court’s approval on Nov. 26, 1990.

Under the agreement, Benedicto would cede to the government certain properties, rights and/or interests he may have over particular corporate assets. These include all of the assets of IBC, estimated at P450 million, including 41,000 square meters of land at Broadcast City, Quezon City as well as the land and buildings of all IBC provincial TV and radio stations. He also assigned to the government all his rights, interests and participation in RPN 9 and BBC 2, including its provincial TV and radio stations.

Further reading: Government changes mind on sale of RPN 9, IBC 13

In return, the PCGG agreed to lift the sequestration of certain assets and to extend absolute immunity to Benedicto, his family members, and officers and employees of his corporation, from investigations by the government.

The Office of the Solicitor General as well as plaintiffs-interveners ABS-CBN and MBS filed their opposition to the compromise agreement. What followed were replies, manifestations, and motions between the latter group and the parties to the compromise agreement. Several pleadings were also filed to defer the resolution of the compromise agreement.

On Oct. 2, 1992, the anti-graft court approved the motion for the two parties to enter into the agreement.

With the compromise agreement upheld, Benedicto moved to request the anti-graft court for judgment and execution in his case on Nov. 3, 1992. The PCGG, then headed by Magtanggol Gunigundo, filed a motion for reconsideration, but the court denied it on Dec. 10, 1992. Instead, the anti-graft court resolved to grant Benedicto et al.’s request on March 8, 1993 and directed the entry of final judgment and execution.

The PCGG and several plaintiffs-interveners filed several petitions before the SC to nullify the compromise agreement.

On March 23, 1993, the SC issued a temporary restraining order, directing the anti-graft court to cease and desist from taking any action or proceedings that would amount to a total or partial judgment and execution of Benedicto et al.’s case or carrying out the compromise agreement. The SC, upon reviewing the petitions, dismissed them on Sept. 10, 1993 and lifted the TRO on the anti-graft court.

As such, on Nov. 11, 1993, Benedicto filed another motion for execution of judgment and issuance of passport, which the PCGG opposed on Dec. 3, 1993. On Dec. 22, 1993, the anti-graft court directed the entry of final judgment and execution and approved the compromise agreement.

Several defendants dropped from case

Several defendants died while the case was under litigation. On Sept. 30, 1987, the PCGG moved to drop Dominador Pangilinan as a defendant after he died on Sept. 20, 1987. The Sandiganbayan granted the motion on Oct. 11, 1988.

Likewise, the PCGG moved to drop defendant Benett Ll. Thelmo from the case on March 26, 1991 following a re-investigation and re-evaluation that proved he was not financially connected or related by any means to either Benedicto or the Marcos couple. The anti-graft court granted the motion on April 4, 1991.

Defendant Cesar Zalamea also filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the claim or demand against him had been paid, waived or extinguished in view of the compromise agreement. While the PCGG opposed the motion, arguing that the agreement did not extinguish the liabilities of the other defendants in the case, the court granted Zalamea’s motion and ordered the dismissal of his case on Nov. 2, 1995. A motion of reconsideration filed by the PCGG was rejected by the court on Feb. 14, 1996.

The case against Exequiel Garcia, another defendant, was also dismissed on Aug. 15, 1995 for failure of the PCGG to prove or sustain any of the causes of action in the amended complaint against him. The PCGG requested to set aside the decision and for a new trial, but the court denied these motions on Oct. 30, 1997. A petition for certiorari was filed by the PCGG before the SC, which was dismissed because it was filed beyond the allowed period. Garcia filed a motion for execution on the dismissal of his case, which the court granted on Aug. 26, 1997.

Failure of documentary evidence

In hearing the case of the remaining defendants, the prosecution presented eyewitnesses and pieces of documentary evidence to prove that the defendants were involved in the dummy corporations that allegedly benefited the Marcos couple.

For their part, the defendants invoked immunity from the charges in view of Benedicto’s compromise agreement with the PCGG, as well as a separate immunity agreement that defendant Ramon Monzon entered with the PCGG on May 14, 1992.

They also showed documentary evidence of their compliance with the compromise agreement and the immunity agreement, including the transfer of several assets in the defendants’ possession or control to the PCGG during the execution of these agreements.

Benedicto died on May 15, 2000, but his estate continued representing him in court.

In dismissing the case against the remaining defendants, the Second Division said the PCGG failed to present relevant documentary evidence, including original copies, to hold the Marcoses and their cronies accountable.

The Second Division said the prosecution was also not able to bring key witnesses during the trial to authenticate their affidavits. The court also noted that documentary evidences presented during the hearings failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the involvement of the defendants in amassing ill-gotten wealth. — With Elizabeth Marcelo