The Sandiganbayan has dismissed the ill-gotten wealth case against Manila Bulletin’s Emilio Yap, former Energy Minister Geronimo Velasco, and former Jai Alai Corp director Olympio Bermudez 37 years ago.
The anti-graft court’s Fourth Division issued the ruling as it granted their demurrer to evidence in the civil case where they were among the co-defendants of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos and former First Lady Imelda Marcos.
Yap, Velasco, and Bermudez had been accused of acting as “dummies, nominees, agents, incorporators, directors, board members and/or stockholders” of corporations held or controlled by the Marcos couple and former Tacloban City mayor Alfredo Romualdez, Imelda’s brother.
In dropping Yap, Velasco, and Bermudez as defendants, the Sandiganbayan said the government’s evidence were not enough to establish the allegations against them.
“After a circumspect evaluation of the evidence on record and the demurrers to evidence filed by defendants Yap, Bermudez, and Velasco, the Court is constrained to rule that the plaintiff Republic failed to prove the allegations in the Amended Complaint by preponderance of evidence as against them,” it said.
It said the testimonies of the records custodians of the Presidential Commission on Good Government’s and the Bataan Shipyard and Engineering Company (Baseco) were inadequate to show how the three defendants had supposedly enabled the Marcoses and Romualdez to amass ill-gotten wealth.
The bulk of the documentary evidence also consisted of photocopies, which could not be admitted into the record, it said.
The government evidence had sought to show that Alfredo Romuladez was the true and beneficial owner of Baseco, and that parcels of land land owned by the Export Processing Zone in Mariveles, Bataan were transferred to Baseco upon Marcos’ signal.
It likewise sought to prove that Romualdez and the Marcoses controlled Baseco, Manila International Ports Terminal Inc. (MIPTI) and Philippine Jail Alai and Amusement Corp. (PJAC).
But the court said the evidence was unable to show that Yap, Velasco, and Bermudez, either individually or working with the other defendants, “planned, schemed, and devised strategies to unlawfully and unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of the plaintiff and the Filipino people.”
“None of these exhibits prove the actual participation of defendants Bermudez, Velasco, and Yap in the alleged acquisition of defendant Romualdez of a majority share in Baseco, MIPTI, PJAC, and (Philippine Dockyard Corp.),” it said.
The demurrer to evidence was filed separately by the the joint administrators of the Yap’s estate, the heirs of Velasco, and Bermudez.
They had contended that the totality of the evidence presented failed to prove their supposed participation in the ill-gotten wealth acquisition.
They noted that the witnesses were presented only to identify and authenticate documentary exhibits marked by the plaintiff Republic of the Philippines.
Nothing in the documents also support the allegation that they had acted as dummies for the Marcoses and Romualdez, they also said.
Yap’s estate argued that there was no showing that his shares in Baseco were issued by the government, or that he took advantage of his ties to Marcos.
Velasco’s heirs also pointed out that the records custodians who took the witness stand did not have personal knowledge of the contents of the documents.