The Supreme Court has acquitted former First Lady Imelda Romualdez Marcos of several counts of graft after reversing the Sandiganbayan decision that found her guilty over alleged financial interests in several foundations established in Switzerland.
In a 50-page decision penned by Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda dated June 10, 2026 but was made public only on September 9, 2026, the SC reversed and set aside the November 9, 2018 decision of the Sandiganbayan, which convicted Marcos in seven criminal cases for violation of Section 3(h) of Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, in relation to the 1973 Constitution.
The SC ruled that the prosecution failed to prove Marcos’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The consolidated cases involved 10 criminal Informations concerning alleged financial or pecuniary interests in several foundations and the Asian Reliability Corporation, Inc. loan.
The cases included allegations involving the Maler, Trinidad, Rayby and Palmy foundations, as well as the Azio-Verso-Vibur, Rosalys-Aguamina, Avertina-Xandy/Wintrop-Charis/Scolari/Valamo/Spinus and Pretorien-Gladiator-Cesar-ESG foundations.
The Sandiganbayan had previously found Marcos guilty in Criminal Case Nos. 17287, 17288, 17289, 17290, 22867, 22868 and 22869.
She was earlier acquitted in Criminal Case No. 19225 because the Information failed to charge an offense, and in Criminal Case Nos. 17291 and 22870 for insufficiency of evidence.
The SC, however, found serious legal and evidentiary problems with the convictions.
One of the major reasons for the acquittal was the discrepancy between the capacity in which Marcos was charged and the constitutional prohibition used by the Sandiganbayan to convict her.
The Informations in Criminal Case Nos. 17287 to 17290 charged Marcos in her capacity as a member of the Interim Batasang Pambansa.
However, the Sandiganbayan convicted her based on a constitutional prohibition applicable to Cabinet members.
The SC said an accused cannot be convicted of an offense that was not properly charged in the Information.
It noted that the constitutional restrictions applicable to members of the Interim Batasang Pambansa were different from those applicable to Cabinet members.
As a member of the Interim Batasang Pambansa, mere possession of a pecuniary interest in the foundations was not prohibited.
What was prohibited was intervention in an official capacity in a government transaction, contract, franchise or special privilege.
The SC said the evidence did not show that Marcos intervened, for her pecuniary benefit, in any matter before a government office.
“All told, accused-appellant’s right to due process was violated when the SBN convicted her of an offense which she had not been legally informed of,” the SC said.
It added that the evidence failed to prove her guilt for the crime charged in her capacity as a member of the Interim Batasang Pambansa.
It also pointed out that the prosecution itself had acknowledged that the Informations lacked certain allegations and even expressed an intention to amend them by adding the words “Cabinet and.”
The amendment, however, was not made.
The SC said the Informations therefore remained insufficient.
Even aside from the defective Informations, the SC said Marcos still had to be acquitted because the prosecution failed to establish all the elements of the offense beyond reasonable doubt.
The SC particularly questioned the prosecution’s evidence concerning the Swiss documents used to establish Marcos’ alleged interests in the foundations.
It found that the contents of the documents were hearsay because the prosecution witnesses who identified them were not competent to testify on their truthfulness.
The witnesses, including former Solicitor General Francisco Chavez and Ambassador Luis Ascalon, were not the authors or declarants of the private documents.
The SC said Ascalon even admitted that he had not actually seen some of the documents before transmitting them to Chavez.
As hearsay evidence, the Swiss documents could not be given probative value.
The SC also ruled that the prosecution failed to prove that the foundations were “businesses” within the meaning of Section 3(h) of Republic Act No. 3019.
The law penalizes a public officer who directly or indirectly has a financial or pecuniary interest in a business, contract or transaction in connection with which the officer intervenes or takes part in an official capacity, or in which the officer is prohibited from having an interest by the Constitution or law.
The SC said both the anti-graft law and the constitutional provision relied upon by the prosecution used the term “business.”
Thus, it had to be established that the foundations were businesses for Marcos’ alleged financial interests in them to fall within the law.
The SC found that the prosecution failed to make that showing as it noted that activities such as opening bank accounts, transferring funds and earning interest or investment profits do not, by themselves, make an entity a commercial enterprise.
It said there was no showing that the foundations regularly offered goods or services for profit.
“Absent a showing that the subject foundations were regularly offering goods or services for the main purpose of earning profit, they cannot be considered businesses,” the ruling said.
The Court also rejected the Sandiganbayan’s reliance on an earlier ruling involving the administration of foundations.
It said the earlier case was a civil forfeiture proceeding and did not involve an interpretation of the term “business” under Section 3(h) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The SC further noted that several of the foundations were established under Liechtenstein law, while the Sandiganbayan relied on a journal article concerning Swiss law in characterizing the foundations.
It said the prosecution should have presented the applicable foreign laws and related them to the activities of the foundations.
Without such evidence, the SX said, the record was insufficient to challenge the status of the foundations or classify them as businesses.
It stressed that doubts concerning whether the foundations were covered by the term “business” should be resolved in favor of the accused because penal laws are strictly construed against the State.
The SC clarified that the criminal cases did not determine whether the assets held by the foundations constituted ill-gotten wealth.
That issue remains subject to separate forfeiture proceedings instituted by the government.
The criminal cases were limited to determining whether Marcos was guilty of holding a financial or pecuniary interest in a business, contract or transaction prohibited under the 1973 Constitution.
The Sandiganbayan had originally ruled that Marcos was guilty beyond reasonable doubt in seven cases and sentenced her in each case to imprisonment ranging from six years and one month to 11 years, with perpetual disqualification from holding public office.
The high court’s ruling effectively overturned those convictions.
“Accordingly, the Appeal is GRANTED,” the SX said in the dispositive portion.
The Court ordered the November 9, 2018 Sandiganbayan decision in Criminal Case Nos. 17287, 17288, 17289, 17290, 22867, 22868 and 22869 reversed and set aside and acquitted Marcos for the prosecution’s failure to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.#