Imelda Marcos acquitted as SC overturns seven graft convictions

National

A CONVICTION that once sent Imelda Marcos to the brink of imprisonment has been overturned, with the Supreme Court acquitting the former first lady in seven graft cases.

In a 50-page ruling penned by Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda, the Supreme Court’s First Division found that the prosecution failed to prove Marcos’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 3(h) of Republic Act 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, in relation to Article IX, Section 8 of the 1973 Constitution.

The cases stemmed from allegations that Marcos, who served as governor of Metro Manila and held other government positions during the administration of her husband, the late President Ferdinand Marcos Sr., maintained financial interests in several private foundations based in Switzerland.

The prosecution’s case relied on Swiss documents that allegedly showed Marcos had financial and pecuniary interests in the foundations.

The high court ruled, however, that the documents were inadmissible because they were not properly authenticated under Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, which governs the authentication of private documents.

The SC said the prosecution failed to present a credible witness who could attest to the documents’ genuineness and due execution.

The documents also lacked probative value because their contents were “hearsay,” the court said. The witnesses presented by the prosecution to identify them were “incompetent to testify on their veracity.”

The prosecution also failed to establish that Marcos had a financial or pecuniary interest covered by the anti-graft law, according to the SC.

It said prosecutors did not establish that the foundations were businesses. Any financial or pecuniary interest Marcos may have had in them is therefore “not covered” by Section 3(h) of RA 3019 and Article IX, Section 7 of the 1973 Constitution.

The SC acknowledged that it may relax procedural rules in the interest of substantial justice but stressed that this cannot come at the expense of the accused’s substantive rights.

“The rules on the sufficiency of allegations in the Information and the admissibility and probative weight of evidence, in so far as they may cause injury to the substantive rights of the accused, cannot be casually brushed aside by the invocation of substantial justice and public interest,” the ruling read, as quoted by Philstar.

The decision set aside the Sandiganbayan’s 2018 conviction of Marcos, who turned 97 last July, on seven counts of graft.

The anti-graft court had sentenced her to six years and one month to 11 years in prison for each count and ordered her perpetual disqualification from public office.(MyTVCebu)