The Sandiganbayan denied the complaint of not getting the wealth compared to Marcoses, businessmen
The Sandiganbayan has dismissed a civil case involving the allegedly misappropriated wealth of former President Ferdinand Marcos, his wife Imelda, and late businessmen Ricardo Silverio and Pablo Carlos Jr.
In a decision published on June 30, the Four Divisions anti-graft court dismissed the complaint for reorganization, restoration, accounting, restoration, and damages filed in July 1987 by the Presidential Commission on Good Governance (PCGG ).
The Sandiganbayan said the government had “failed to establish its case” through the preponderance of evidence. It also dismissed the counterclaims filed by the defendants for the same reason.
Silverio and Carlos were accused of taking “excessive advantage” of their influence and connection with the Marcoses in:
- Give Marcoses kickbacks or commissions worth “hundreds of thousands of US dollars” in exchange for contracts for Kawasaki Scrap Loaders and Toyota Rear Dump Trucks
- Receive special accommodations, privileges, and exemptions from the Central Bank for the importation of Toyota vehicles for Delta Motors Inc., among others
- Get large amounts of loans, guarantees, and other types of credit under “favored and very liberal” credit terms from government financial institutions to finance their businesses
- Gain preferred status and treatment in the implementation of the Government’s Progressive Car Manufacturing
- Get million peso emergency loans from the Central Bank as an additional infusion of capital in Silverio-owned Filipinas Bank
- Act as a dummy, nominee, or agent of the Marcoses in many corporations in which the couple has a substantial interest.
PCGG also questioned the assets and shares of stock belonging to the defendants.
Silverio “strongly” denies the acquisition of the unrequited wealth, either in one or in collusion with the Marcoses.
Carlos also maintained that it was “clear” that no oral or documentary evidence was offered against him.
The Sandiganbayan ruled that “a thorough examination of all the testimonial and documentary evidence offered by the plaintiff showed that it failed to successfully substantiate the specific average complaints.”
The decision was written by Associate Justice Alex Quiroz while Associate Justices Lorifel Pahimna and Edgardo Caldona agreed.—AOL, GMA News