SC acquits Imelda Marcos on 7 counts of graft

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has overturned the 2018 conviction of former first lady Imelda Marcos on seven counts of graft, saying the prosecution failed to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt after finding that the key testimony and documentary evidence used against her were “inadmissible and lacked sufficient probative weight.” In a decision dated June 10 and made public on Wednesday, the high tribunal’s First Division acquitted the 97-year-old mother of President Marcos of violating Section 3(h) of Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The 50-page decision reversed the Sandiganbayan’s November 2018 judgment that found Marcos guilty on seven counts of graft and imposed combined prison terms of up to 77 years. She has not spent a day behind bars as she remained out on bail while pursuing her appeal. The antigraft court earlier acquitted Mrs. Marcos in three other graft cases. The cases that reached the Supreme Court stemmed from allegations that Marcos and her late husband, deposed President Ferdinand Marcos Sr., used a network of Swiss foundations to hold and transfer at least $200 million abroad while she occupied a succession of public positions, including Metro Manila governor, minister of human settlements and member of the defunct Batasang Pambansa. The Supreme Court decision did not determine whether the transactions were legitimate. Rather, it held that the prosecution failed to meet the evidentiary requirements necessary to sustain criminal convictions. The ruling, penned by Justice Rodil Zalameda, focused particularly on whether the Swiss foundations fell within the scope of the antigraft law and whether documents presented to establish their nature and transactions had been properly authenticated. Also making up the court’s First Division are Associate Justice Ramon Hernando as chair; and Associate Justices Henri Inting, Jose Midas Marquez, and Ricardo Rosario as members. The Supreme Court decision said public interest could not substitute for the evidentiary standards required in criminal proceedings. Zalameda stressed that the rules governing the sufficiency of allegations, the admissibility of evidence and its probative weight could not simply be disregarded by invoking public interest or the broader demands of justice. “This is especially true in this case, considering that the prosecution has, at its disposal, the vast resources of the state,” he wrote. Under Section 3(h) of the antigraft statute, the prosecution was required to establish, among other elements, the relevant relationship between a public officer and a business or financial interest. The Supreme Court said prosecutors had not adequately demonstrated that the Marcos-linked foundations were businesses covered by the provision. The Sandiganbayan then ruled that the foundations’ formal designation was not controlling because they were said to have operated by opening bank accounts, accepting deposits, transferring funds, earning interest and making investments for the private benefit of the Marcos family. But the Supreme Court found that reasoning insufficient. “Such a pronouncement is problematic for numerous reasons,” the decision said, stressing that the burden was on the prosecution to demonstrate that the foundations were incorrectly classified under the applicable foreign laws and were, in fact, businesses. The high court also agreed with the Marcos defense that documentary evidence concerning the Swiss foundations had not been properly admitted. It said the Sandiganbayan erred in treating the Swiss documents as authenticated public records when, according to the Supreme Court, they were private documents requiring proper authentication. The witnesses called by the prosecution to establish the authenticity of the records were likewise deemed incompetent to testify on the matters required. “In sum, the relevant Swiss documents were not properly authenticated,” the Supreme Court said. “The prosecution was not able to present any credible witness who could have attested to the genuineness and due execution of the documents.” The court added that admissibility was only the first hurdle. Even if the documents had been admitted into evidence, their probative value, whether they actually proved the issues in dispute, would still have to be established. Marcos was charged with graft in December 1991, shortly after the family returned to the Philippines following the collapse of the Marcos dictatorship in 1986. She surrendered and posted bail days after the charges were filed. The prosecution centered on allegations involving foundations established in Switzerland during the Marcos era and the movement of substantial sums through foreign bank accounts. The cases remained unresolved for years before the Sandiganbayan finally issued its 2018 ruling. That decision ordered Marcos to serve prison terms ranging from six years and one month to 11 years for each of the seven counts, with the sentences carrying a potential aggregate maximum of 77 years. Marcos promptly appealed. The latest SC ruling marks another major legal reversal for the former first lady, whose family remains one of the most consequential political forces in the Philippines. Her son, Ferdinand Marcos Jr., was elected president in 2022, more than three decades after the family’s departure from power. The Marcoses left the Philippines in 1986 after a popular uprising known as the People Power Revolution ended the elder Marcos’s presidency. He died in exile in 1989. The family subsequently returned to the Philippines and rebuilt its political base. Imelda Marcos later served in Congress, while her son eventually rose to the presidency. The Supreme Court ruling is not the first time the high court has overturned a major graft conviction against Imelda Marcos. In 1993, it reversed a 24-year prison sentence imposed in another graft case. The latest acquittal also comes against the backdrop of the Philippines’ decades-long effort to recover wealth allegedly accumulated by the Marcos family and its associates during the dictatorship. —With a report from Agence France-Presse