The Sandiganbayan refused an appeal from the government to reverse the dismissal of a P1-billion civil case against the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos, his wife Imelda, and their suspected dummies, the owners of the Rustan Commercial Corporation, Bienvenido Tantoco Sr. and Gliceria Tantoco.
In its motion for reconsideration against the dismissal of the lawsuit, the Presidential Commission on Good Government argued that the defendants acknowledged substantive claims regarding the ungotten existence of the property of Tourist Duty-Free Shops.
The PCGG added that the Tantocos actually acted as Marcoses ‘ dummies and agents in acquiring ill-gotten wealth. The 2nd Division of Sandiganbayan denied the PCGG’s appeal for lack of merit due to the failure to present new arguments. In the assailed opinion, which states that the complainant’s documentary and testimonial evidence is insufficient to support the claims in the enlarged case, the court said in a resolution released last November 20, the issues posed therein have already been judiciously passed on and properly considered by the court.
Earlier, the Tantocos denied admission of the substantive claims about the ungotten existence of the TDFS property. Critics also argued that the conditionally admitted documentary documents and contradictory testimony of witnesses from the government are not enough.
The anti-graft court noted decisions of the Supreme Court that a reconsideration motion should be rejected when the same merely rehash previously submitted problems.
Through dismissing the civil case involving expensive art and jewelry, New York real estate, duty-free shop franchises, tax-free import benefits, companies such as Rustan International Marketing, Eagle Mining Company, Rustan Pulp and Paper Factory, the court in September cited insufficiency of evidence.
Sandiganbayan dismisses P1 billion civil suit vs Marcoses, Tantocos The case also included properties in Honolulu in the United States, Rome, Italy and Forbes Park in Makati City in an extended complaint against the defendant as well as other personal property such as motor vehicles, cash on hand and in account, checks, loans, and 3 Cessna aircraft.
Associate Justice Michael Frederick Musngi, with the support of Division Chairperson Oscar Herrera, Jr., and Associate Justice Lorifel Lacap Pahimna, pursued the ruling that denied the appeal of PCGG.