- Petitioner
- General Bank & Trust Co.
- Respondent
- Central | Chavez vs. Presidential | of the Rules of Court, Velarde vs. Social | People vs. Raquel | of the Rules on Evidence, Civil Code, Republic vs. Sandiganbayan | General Bank and Trust Co. vs. Central | Presidential Commission on Good Government Rules and Regulations, Republic vs. Sandiganbayan | Rules of Court, Republic vs. Estate | Republic vs. Desierto | Committee vs. De | Republic vs. Grijaldo | of the Revised Penal Code, Hans Menzi case, PCGG vs. Pena | Medina vs. Mayor | Ching vs. Court | Ong Ching Po vs. Court | Republic vs. Lobregat | Silverio vs. Presidential | Republic vs. Gimenez | of the Rules of Court, Teoco vs. Metropolitan | Rules of Court, Chua vs. Court | Tuvera case, Disini case, People vs. Oliano | Asia Brewery, Inc. vs. Court | Rules of Court provisions on evidence, Republic vs. Estate | People vs. Martin
- Citation
- G.R. No. 152154
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Division
- En Banc
- Ponente
- ZALAMEDA
- Decided
- March 28, 1977 | May 10, 1986 | August 22, 1984 | April 22 1985 | March 12, 1986 | August 21, 2007 | March 29, 1977 | November 19, 2001
Summary
This case involves the Republic's attempt to recover ill-gotten wealth allegedly accumulated by Ferdinand Marcos Sr., his family, and associates including Lucio Tan through various corrupt schemes during the Marcos regime. The PCGG filed suit against several respondents including DBP officers Ferry and Zalamea, alleging their participation in acquiring ill-gotten wealth through the Sipalay Deal and other business arrangements. The evidence included testimony about a purported '60-40 Business Arrangement' between Marcos Sr. and Lucio Tan, extensive documentation of preferential government treatment, and financial transactions involving multiple holding companies and major corporations like Allied Bank and Fortune Tobacco. However, both the Sandiganbayan and Supreme Court found that the Republic failed to meet its burden of proof by preponderance of evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed that while the accumulation of unconscionable wealth by the Marcoses is a matter of judicial notice, the specific allegations of bad faith and conspiracy against the respondents were not sufficiently proven, and the issue of bad faith was barred by res judicata from previous proceedings.