Marcos family. Photo by Malacanang Photo Library

MANILA – The Sandiganbayan has dismissed the last six ill-gotten wealth cases involving the coco levy fund against the late former President Ferdinand Marcos Sr., former First Lady Imelda Marcos, Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Juan Ponce Enrile and their associates due to inordinate delay.

In a 42-page resolution promulgated on December 12, 2024, the Second Division junked the six civil cases "due to inordinate delay in the proceedings."

Sandiganbayan dismisses P276 million ill-gotten wealth case vs Marcoses

"As of the release of this resolution, this delay has been extended to thirty-six (36) years from the time of filing of the original complaint, and twenty-eight (28) years from the subdivision thereof. Therefore, it is the plaintiff Republic that bears the burden of proving that the delay of almost three decades in proceeding to trial in each of these subdivided cases," the anti-graft court said.

The resolution is for subdivided Civil Cases No. 0033-B, 0033-C, 0033-D, 0033-E, 0033-G, 0033-H, stemming from the original case filed by the Presidential Commission on Good Governance on July 31, 1987.

The original civil case sought the recovery of ill-gotten wealth allegedly acquired by the defendants through the misuse and appropriation of the coco levy funds.

The six dismissed cases alleged the misuse of the coco levy funds for the following:

- Creation of companies out of coco levy funds
- Creation and operation of Bugsuk Project and awards of P998 million damages to Agricultural Investors, Inc.
- Disadvantageous purchases and settlement of the accounts of Oil Mills out of coco levy funds
- Unlawful disbursement and dissipation of coco levy funds
- Acquisition of Pepsi-Cola
- Granting of behest loans and contracts

The anti-graft court cited the dismissal of similar cases against the late tycoon Eduardo "Danding" Cojuangco Jr. by the Supreme Court. It said the court cannot re-litigate a previous case already resolved by the high tribunal.

Sandiganbayan junks P102-billion Marcos forfeiture case

"The ruling of the Supreme Court regarding the burden of proof upon the plaintiff and the periods of delay in the case of Cojuangco v.  Sandiganbayan must be applied fully in the instant cases… The Court is duty-bound to follow the precedents laid out in the said case," the resolution read.

"Herein defendants are similarly situated as defendant Cojuango in the said case, as they suffered from the same protracted delays, postponements of pre-trial, and suspension of proceedings. On the other hand, plaintiff Republic has not presented any compelling arguments for this Court to relitigate and reopen these matters, much less a reason to diverge from the conclusions of the highest court of the land," it added. 

The Second Division said the defendants "undoubtedly suffered prejudice due to the length and seemingly interminable threat of prosecution."

It noted the impact of the decades-long delay to their resources, memories and evidence.

"Despite the passage of time and the mounting legal costs, defendants have not yet had an opportunity to present a single witness or any piece of evidence for their defense. It is inevitable for the defense witnesses' memories to fade, or for witnesses themselves to become unavailable, and for crucial pieces of evidence to be lost to the ravages of time," the ruling read.

The anti-graft court does not deny government prosecutors may have suffered similar losses, but these risks should have pushed them to actively prosecute the case and present evidence at the earliest possible opportunity.

"Plaintiff Republic's seeming reluctance, and indeed, refusal, to proceed to trial is the root of the delay in these cases… Plaintiff Republic has shown no proof that the complexity of the issues and voluminous records could have reasonably and logically delayed their presentation of evidence for more than twenty years in each of these cases," it said.

The Sandiganbayan added, there were many opportunities for government prosecutors to begin initial presentation of evidence and witnesses in the past three decades but they chose not to do so.

"The Court agrees that a hasty conclusion on these complex issues will not serve the ultimate ends of justice, especially considering the great notoriety and controversy surrounding the alleged coco levy scam," it said.

"Be that as it may, it is patently absurd to claim that the current amount of delay is necessary or beneficial to the resolution of the cases herein. Mere invocation of the gravity and notoriety of the overarching illegal scheme or activity upon which a specific case relates, will not suffice as justifications for the delay in its resolution," the anti-graft court said.

The Second Division cited the prosecution coming to trial unprepared and multiple pleadings for unjustified and unmeritorious postponements.

The prosecution's motions caused the initial presentation of evidence to be pushed back, with the plaintiff not seeing it fit to go to trial despite the denial and resolution of various motions.

"All told, the proceedings in these cases were attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays resulting in the violation of the defendants' right to speedy disposition of cases under Section 16, Article III of the Constitution and as such, this Court must dismiss them against the movant-defendants," the resolution read.

Last week, the anti-graft court junked two civil cases against the Marcos couple, Enrile and late tycoon Cojuangco Jr. after the government's withdrawal of the cases.

The PCGG said it would no longer pursue claims for damages in its third complaint.