Digest by Rafael Liam Barcelo and Janyn Montealegre
FACTS: In 1991, the Republic of the Philippines, through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), filed a Petition for Forfeiture before the Sandiganbayan pursuant to the forfeiture law, Republic Act No. 1379 (R.A. 1379) in relation to Executive Order Nos. 1, 2 and 14, seeking the declaration of Swiss bank accounts totaling USD 356 million (now USD 658 million), and two treasury notes worth USD 25 million and USD 5 million, as ill gotten wealth. Respondent also sought the forfeiture of the assets of dummy corporations and entities including a corporate entity by the name Arelma, Inc. which maintained an account in Merril Lynch, New York for the purpose of hiding ill-gotten wealth. Thereafter, the Marcos children and the PCGG signed several Compromise Agreements for a global settlement of the Marcos assets. It stated that USD 356 million belongs in principle to the Republic of the Philippines provided certain conditions are met. The Republic then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment pertaining to the forfeiture of the USD 356 million which was initially denied by the Sandigabayan. In 2000, the Republic filed another Motion for Summary Judgment which the Sandiganbayan granted, declaring that the Swiss deposits as ill gotten wealth, and, thus, forfeited in favor of the State. In 2004, the Republic filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment to declare the funds, properties, shares in and interests of Arelma, Inc. as ill gotten assets which the Sandiganbayan granted. Petitioner now assails the Order of the Sandiganbayan granting public respondent’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
ISSUE: Whether or not the application of summary judgment is justified.
RULING: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled in this case that petitioner Imelda Marcos’ sham denials justify the application of summary judgment. It was noted that the entirety of the lawful income of the Marcoses represents only 9% of the entire assets of Arelma, which petitioners remain unable to explain. Petitioners employ the same tactic, consisting of general denials based on a purported lack of knowledge regarding the whereabouts of the Arelma assets. The defenses of “lack of knowledge for lack of privity” or “(inability to) recall because it happened a long time ago” or, on the part of Mrs. Marcos, that “the funds were lawfully acquired” are fully insufficient to tender genuine issues. The Marcoses’ defenses were a sham and evidently calibrated to compound and confuse the issues. The High Court found this to be an attempt to delay the goal of asset recovery by their evasiveness and the expedient profession of ignorance.
THE BARRISTER 