Metro Manila (CNN Philippines, June 20) — The Sandiganbayan rejected due to lack of merit government prosecutors’ plea to introduce additional witness testimonies in a case alleging ill-gotten wealth against personalities linked to former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, the father and namesake of the country’s current leader.
In a resolution dated June 13, the anti-graft court’s Fourth Division denied the prosecution’s motion to present an officer of the Sandiganbayan’s Third Division to identify Civil Case No. 009’s transcript of stenographic notes (TSN), which contained witness testimonies that the prosecution was unable to present in Civil Case No. 0178.
The Fourth Division handled Civil Case No. 0178, while the Third Division heard Civil Case No. 009, which accused alleged cronies of Marcos and his wife Imelda of using ill-gotten wealth accumulated during his two-decade reign to purchase shares of the Eastern Telecommunications Philippines Inc. (ETPI).
Civil Case No. 0178 was filed in 1997 through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), seeking to recover 3,305 government shares of stock in the ETPI.
Government prosecutors wanted the Third Division’s officer to identify the transcripts to prove that the witnesses indeed earlier testified in Civil Case No. 009. Nine of the witnesses had either died, are unwilling to testify, or are abroad.The Fourth Division maintained that while both civil cases are closely related as they “seek to establish the ill-gotten nature of the ETPI shares of stock,” the defendants were not impleaded in Civil Case No. 009.It explained that allowing an officer to identify the TSNs of individuals who cannot testify “would unduly deprive herein defendants their right to be confronted at the trial by, and to cross-examine, the witnesses against them.”
The court said it “cannot help but take the view” that the prosecution intends to adopt the TSNs of Civil Case No. 009 as records of Civil Case No. 0178.
The anti-graft court further argued the bid to present a new witness showed a lack of competence in pursuing the case. The prosecution, however, cited “circumstances beyond its control.”
“Its inability to locate its witnesses now, after a period of 26 years, demonstrates its complacent attitude or lack of due diligence in pursuing the present case,” the Fourth Division said.
