NATIONAL
Advocates Philippines
Sandiganbayan Junks ill gotten wealth case against ex President Marcos, wife Imelda, and others
Photo credit: Marial Law Museum
The Sandiganbayan has dismissed a civil action against former Philippine President Ferdinand E. Marcos and several other individuals and corporations for alleged ill-gotten wealth.
The case, which sought reconveyance, reversion, accounting, and damages, was brought against defendants including Peter Sabido, Imelda Marcos, Roberto Benedicto, Luis Yulo, Nicolas Dehesa, Jose Tengco Jr., Rafael Sison, Cesar Zalamea, Don Ferry, and several corporations.
The court found that the evidence presented by the plaintiff failed to establish that the properties listed in the amended complaint were ill-gotten or that they were beneficially owned and controlled by the former President and his family. The court also found that there was no evidence to show that the defendants had any hand in the acquisition of shares in defendant corporations.
The court emphasized that the plaintiff must rely on the strength of their evidence and not the weaknesses of the defendant's claims, and that even if the plaintiff's evidence may be stronger than the defendant's, it must still be sufficient to establish their cause of action.
As a result, the court dismissed the case for failure of the plaintiff to prove by preponderance of evidence the material allegations contained in the amended complaint. The sequestration of defendant corporations, Lianga Bay Logging Co. and Yulo King Ranch, was also lifted.
The case, which sought reconveyance, reversion, accounting, and damages, was brought against defendants including Peter Sabido, Imelda Marcos, Roberto Benedicto, Luis Yulo, Nicolas Dehesa, Jose Tengco Jr., Rafael Sison, Cesar Zalamea, Don Ferry, and several corporations.
The court found that the evidence presented by the plaintiff failed to establish that the properties listed in the amended complaint were ill-gotten or that they were beneficially owned and controlled by the former President and his family. The court also found that there was no evidence to show that the defendants had any hand in the acquisition of shares in defendant corporations.
The court emphasized that the plaintiff must rely on the strength of their evidence and not the weaknesses of the defendant's claims, and that even if the plaintiff's evidence may be stronger than the defendant's, it must still be sufficient to establish their cause of action.
As a result, the court dismissed the case for failure of the plaintiff to prove by preponderance of evidence the material allegations contained in the amended complaint. The sequestration of defendant corporations, Lianga Bay Logging Co. and Yulo King Ranch, was also lifted.
Feb 23, 2023
