By Benjamin Cuaresma
MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has thrown out seven graft convictions against former first lady Imelda Marcos, ruling that the prosecution failed to present evidence strong enough to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In a 50-page decision, the high court’s First Division found that key testimonies and documentary evidence presented against Marcos were either inadmissible or lacked sufficient probative value.
The decision was issued on June 10 but was made public only Tuesday.
Marcos, 97, was acquitted of seven counts of violating Section 3(h) of Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The cases arose from Swiss foundations established by Marcos and her late husband, former President Ferdinand Marcos, which prosecutors alleged were used to keep at least $200 million abroad.
The transactions were linked to the period when Imelda Marcos served in government as a member of the defunct Batasang Pambansa, Metro Manila governor and minister of human settlements.
The graft cases were filed in December 1991. Marcos surrendered days later and was allowed to post bail.
After years of proceedings, the Sandiganbayan in 2018 found her guilty on all seven counts and imposed prison terms that could reach a combined 77 years. She was allowed to remain free on bail while the case was appealed.
The Supreme Court, however, found that the prosecution failed on a crucial point: proving that the Marcos-linked foundations were “businesses” covered by the anti-graft law.
Justice Rodil Zalameda, who wrote the decision, said the prosecution had the burden of establishing that the foundations had been improperly classified under the applicable foreign laws and that they actually fell within the legal definition of businesses.
The high court also rejected the reasoning used by the Sandiganbayan that the foundations’ designation was not controlling because they allegedly engaged in activities such as opening bank accounts, transferring funds, earning interest and investing money for the benefit of the Marcos family.
According to the Supreme Court, the Sandiganbayan’s treatment of the foundations raised serious legal problems because the prosecution still had to prove the necessary elements of the offense with admissible and credible evidence.
The ruling further stressed that questions involving the sufficiency of the complaints and the evidentiary value of the prosecution’s proof could not simply be overcome by invoking public interest or the demands of justice.
With the prosecution failing to meet the required standard of proof, the Supreme Court reversed the Sandiganbayan ruling and acquitted Marcos in all seven cases.
ia/xf
