Supreme Court acquits Imelda Marcos in 7 graft cases due to weak evidence

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has overturned the conviction of former First Lady Imelda Marcos in seven graft cases, acquitting her due to insufficient and inadmissible evidence. The high tribunal found that the prosecution's testimonies and documentary evidence "lacked probative weight." Marcos, 97, was charged with graft in connection with Swiss foundations allegedly established and used by her and her late husband, dictator Ferdinand Marcos, to stash over $200 million abroad. These foundations were reportedly set up for the private benefit of the Marcos family. Indicted in December 1991, Marcos had posted bail for her temporary liberty. The case spanned decades until 2018 when the Sandiganbayan found her guilty of seven counts of graft and sentenced her to up to 77 years in prison, though she was allowed to remain on bail. In reversing the Sandiganbayan's ruling, the Supreme Court stated that the prosecution failed to prove that the Marcos-linked foundations were "businesses" as defined by the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA No. 3019). Justice Rodil Zalameda, in the 50-page decision, wrote, "[In] classifying the foundations as businesses, the (Sandiganbayan) merely held that the term ‘foundation’ should not be controlling because these entities were put up ‘primarily for the entrepreneurial activity of opening bank accounts and deposits, transferring funds, earning interests, and even profit from investment, for the private benefit of the Marcos family as beneficiaries. The purpose of setting up these entities is not charitable, educational, religious, or otherwise in service of public interests.’" He further added, "Such a pronouncement is problematic for numerous reasons. First, it is the prosecution’s burden to show that the subject foundations were incorrectly classified as such under the pertinent foreign laws and that these were in fact businesses." Zalameda emphasized that the sufficiency of allegations and the admissibility and probative weight of evidence cannot be set aside merely by invoking public interest and justice. This Supreme Court decision comes amidst ongoing discussions about corruption in the Philippines and the enduring influence of the Marcos family in the nation's politics.