Supreme Court acquits Imelda Marcos in 7 counts of graft

IMELDA. Former first lady Imelda Marcos at Senator Bongbong Marcos rally in Mandaluyong. Rob Reyes The SC says the prosecution failed to prove Marcos' guilt beyond reasonable doubt The Supreme Court of the Philippines acquitted Imelda Marcos of graft charges related to Swiss foundations, overturning a previous conviction by the Sandiganbayan. The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the authenticity of evidence presented. The decision emphasized that the prosecution did not establish that the foundations in question constituted 'businesses' as defined under the relevant laws. This is AI-generated. Read the article for full context. Report any errors. MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court (SC) 1st Division acquitted Imelda Marcos, the mother of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., in her graft cases related to Swiss foundations. In a decision made public on Wednesday, September 9, the SC division overturned the Sandiganbayan’s November 2018 decision that convicted the 97-year-old former first lady of seven counts of graft. “Accordingly, the Appeal is granted. The November 9, 2018 Decision of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case Nos. 17287, 17288, 17289, 17290, 22867, 22868, and 22869 is reversed and set aside. Accused-appellant Imelda R. Marcos is acquitted for the prosecution’s failure to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 3(h) of Republic Act No. 3019, in relation to Article IX, Section 8 of the 1973 Constitution,” said the 50-page ruling penned by Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda. Associate justices Ramon Paul Hernando, Henri Jean Paul Inting, Ricardo Rosario, and Jose Midas Marquez all concurred in the ruling. The Marcos matriarch is acquitted four years into the presidential term of her son, who won the presidency in 2022. The ruling In its decision, the SC division said the prosecution failed to prove Marcos’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Beyond reasonable doubt is the threshold needed to convict an accused in criminal cases. Marcos was charged with alleged violation of Section 3(h), which has the following elements: the accused is a public officer they have direct or indirect financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract, or transaction they either intervened or took part in their official capacity or connection with such interest, or they are prohibited from having such interest by the Constitution or by any law The SC said it’s undisputed that the first element is present, but the second and third elements are contested. The Office of the Ombudsman presented documentary and testimonial evidence that sought to prove Marcos’ financial interest, but the SC said they were “inadmissible and lack probative weight.” In Marcos’ case, the Sandiganbayan found that she had a financial and pecuniary interest in the foundations based on the Swiss documents. The documents were retrieved from Swiss banks and had been authenticated in accordance with Swiss legal procedure. However, the SC said the Sandiganbayan erred when it considered the Swiss documents duly authenticated. “The Court has emphasized that the rule on authentication, more particularly as to private documents, is in place to prevent the inclusion of spurious documents in the body of evidence. Thus, it is settled that private documents are generally inadmissible in evidence unless they are properly authenticated,” said the ruling, adding that the prosecution was not able to present a credible witness who could have testified to the documents’ authenticity. In addition, even if the SC would ignore the probative weight of the prosecution’s evidence, Marcos must still be acquitted, said the Court. The prosecution, according to the SC, failed to prove that the alleged pecuniary interest was “covered by Section 3(h) of Republic Act No. 3019 and Article IX, Section 7 (then Section 8) of the 1973 Constitution.” “All told, the prosecution failed to establish that the subject foundations are businesses as the term is ordinarily understood. Any financial or pecuniary interest in the subject foundations is not covered by Section 3(h) of Republic Act No. 3019 and Article IX, Section 7 (then Section 8) of the 1973 Constitution. Doubts on the coverage of the term ‘business’ should be resolved against the State and in favor of the accused-appellant,” said the ruling. – Rappler.com How does this make you feel? Loading