The Supreme Court has overturned the Sandiganbayan’s 2018 conviction of former First Lady Imelda Romualdez-Marcos on seven counts of graft, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In a decision authored by Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda, the high tribunal granted the appeal of Marcos, mother of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., clearing her of violations under Section 3(h) of Republic Act No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) in relation to the 1973 Constitution.
The charges, originally filed starting in 1968, stemmed from allegations that she held prohibited financial interests in Swiss foundations while serving as a member of the Interim Batasang Pambansa and Minister of Human Settlements.
The ruling sets aside the anti-graft court’s 2018 verdict, which had sentenced her to up to 11 years in prison per count alongside a permanent ban from public office.
In reversing the decision, the Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of upholding basic constitutional guarantees over public sentiment:
“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. This is especially true in this case, considering that the prosecution has, at its disposal, the vast resources of the State.”
The high court highlighted two critical flaws in the prosecution’s case:
- Inadmissible Evidence: The prosecution failed to properly authenticate key Swiss documents under Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, making them legally inadmissible. No credible witnesses were presented to attest to their authenticity, nor did any statutory exceptions apply.
- Failure to Prove Commercial Activity: The state failed to show that the Swiss entities constituted a “business” under the law, which requires regular trade of goods or services for profit. The evidence merely indicated asset deposits for designated beneficiaries rather than commercial enterprises.
The court further noted a breach of due process, clarifying that Marcos was charged in her capacity as a member of the Interim Batasang Pambansa.
Applying constitutional restrictions meant strictly for cabinet ministers to her role in the assembly violated her right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations.
“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.”