MANILA: The Supreme Court has overturned the conviction of Imelda Marcos, former first lady and mother of the sitting president, in seven out of her 10 graft cases after it found that the testimonies and documentary evidence by the prosecution were “inadmissible and lacked probative weight”.
In a 50-page decision by the First Division on June 10 but made public only on Tuesday, the high tribunal acquitted Marcos, 97, for the prosecution’s “failure to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt” in violating Section 3(h) of Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The cases were in connection with the Swiss foundations that she and her late husband, dictator Ferdinand Marcos, created and used to stash at least $200 million abroad while she was a member of the defunct Batasang Pambansa, Metro Manila governor and minister of human settlements.
She was charged with graft in December 1991 and days later surrendered and posted bail for her temporary liberty.
The case dragged on for decades until 2018, when the Sandiganbayan found Marcos guilty on seven counts of graft and sentenced her to up to 77 years in prison. She, however, was allowed to post bail.
In reversing the anti-graft court’s ruling, the Supreme Court said that the prosecution was not able to prove that the Marcos-linked foundations were “businesses” covered by RA No. 3019.
“[In] classifying the foundations as businesses, the (Sandiganbayan) merely held that the term ‘foundation’ should not be controlling because these entities were put up ‘primarily for the entrepreneurial activity of opening bank accounts and deposits, transferring funds, earning interests, and even profit from investment, for the private benefit of the Marcos family as beneficiaries. The purpose of setting up these entities is not charitable, educational, religious, or otherwise in service of public interests,’” read the decision penned by Justice Rodil Zalameda.
It added: “Such a pronouncement is problematic for numerous reasons. First, it is the prosecution’s burden to show that the subject foundations were incorrectly classified as such under the pertinent foreign laws and that these were in fact businesses.”
Zalameda noted that the sufficiency of allegations in the complaints and the admissibility and probative weight of evidence could not be set aside by merely invoking public interest and justice. - Inquirer/ANN
