BY EVANGELINE DE VERA

IMELDA Marcos, the late businessman and former Ambassador Roberto Benedicto, and banker Hector Rivera were acquitted yesterday by the Manila regional trial court on 32 counts of dollar-salting.

The decision was written by Judge Silvino Pampilo whose inhibition was sought by former Solicitor General Francisco Chavez before the Court of Appeals for perceived bias in favor of Marcos.

The cases, filed in 1991 and consolidated into three sub-cases, account for 70 percent of pending civil and criminal suits against the Marcoses, where Chavez is a principal witness.

All the cases were for violations of Central Bank Foreign Exchange Restrictions and CB Circular 960 on the opening and maintaining of foreign exchange accounts abroad.

Forfeiture cases are still pending with the Sandiganbayan and the Supreme Court.

In his 44-page decision, Pampilo dismissed as hearsay the voluminous documentary evidence and testimony of government witnesses, Chavez and former PCGG Commissioner Caesario del Rosario, in favor of the single evidence presented by defense counsel Robert Sison.

Sison, after waiving his clients' right to cross-examine the government's two witnesses, presented no witnesses for the defense and offered only the transcript of stenographic notes taken on Nov. 28, 2006 during a hearing of these cases in the Manila court.

Reading a portion of the memorandum written by Del Rosario in 1994 to then chief presidential legal counsel Antonio Carpio, now an associate justice in the Supreme Court, Sison quoted Del Rosario's "heart-to-heart" talk with Peter Cosandey, a Swiss investigating magistrate, who told him that the chances of the Philippine government recovering the Marcos frozen assets were so nil that it would take 50 years "and still you have no assurance that your government would get the assets."

The RTC said the State through the PCGG failed to prove its allegation of conspiracy among the respondents in using several banks in Switzerland through dummy corporations.

"Like the crime itself, conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. In these cases, no competent proof was adduced to prove the charge of conspiracy. The prosecution was not even able to prove the acts complained of as constituting the offense," said the lower court.

The RTC did not give weight to the documentary evidence presented by the PCGG that Benedicto, a known crony of the Marcoses, invested in the Philippine-issued, dollar-denominated treasury notes.

The Court said there was no clear indication that Benedicto did the transactions for Marcos, nor did the prosecution submit any documentary proof that the three Swiss banks from where the alleged dollar remittances emanated, namely Bank Hofmann, Swiss Bank Corporation (SBC) and Banque de Paris et des Pays-Bas (Paribas), held the dollar notes for Marcos.

"The Court is cognizant of the fact that the government has expended untold time, effort and money in the prosecution of these cases, but the accused has the constitutional presumption of innocence... This Court cannot in all conscience convict the accused on the basis of mere hearsay and on the basis of documents which were not authenticated and proved in the proper manner," said Pampilo.

Del Rosario identified the Swiss bank documents as those which were personally received by Chavez and referred to him for study and evaluation.

He also identified several documents signed by President Ferdinand Marcos and Imelda and testified in the drafting and filing of civil and criminal complaints connected to the recovery of the Marcos properties.

Based on court records, in September 1983, the Bangko Central issued dollar-denominated treasury notes in the total amount of $125 million, $75 million of which was purchased by the three Swiss banks allegedly holding the hidden wealth of then President Marcos and his wife Imelda.

The purchases were recorded in the BSP under the name of Benedicto.

Of the $75 million, $50 million came from Bank Hofmann, $10 million from the SBC and $15 million from Banque Paribas. The purchases by Hofmann and SBC were made through the accounts owned by foundations called Avertina, Maler I and Maler II, which were owned by the Marcoses.

The act of opening and maintaining foreign exchange accounts abroad without CB authorization is a violation of Section 4 of the CB's Foreign Exchange Restrictions as consolidated in 1983 in CB Circular no. 960.

Banque Paribas' purchase was arranged by the Marcoses' attorney-in-fact Stephane Cattaui through Traders Royal Bank, which acted as custodian of the securities. The contact person at TRB was Rivera, vice president of the bank's Trust Department.

The dollar treasury notes subsequently earned $20.572 million from 1984 to 1987, which were neither reported nor registered with the appropriate CB department, allegedly in violation of Section 10 of the CB Circular.

These transactions came to light only after the Edsa People Power revolution in February 1986 when documents relating to the Marcoses' Swiss bank accounts and dollar t-note purchases were found in Malacañang after the Marcos family had fled to Hawaii.

The Aquino administration, represented by then Solicitor General Sedfrey Ordoñez, sought the assistance of Swiss authorities which was granted by Cosenday, who issued a freeze order on all the Swiss banks were the Marcoses and their foundations had accounts, further requiring the banks to submit documents and information concerning the accounts.

On Dec. 21, 1990, the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland rendered twin decisions sustaining the position of the Philippine government and giving it a one-year deadline to file cases against the Marcoses and their cronies, otherwise the freeze order would be lifted.

Chavez, who initiated the filing of civil and criminal cases, testified as to the veracity of the documents that they culled from the Swiss banks.

However, the Manila court ruled that the alleged bank documents attached by the various Swiss bankers were "not official acts of a sovereign authority, nor were they notarized."

The Court further said these documents were not public records that are kept in the Philippines required by law to be entered.

"The prosecution miserably failed to present any witness who could have been a party to or at least have seen the execution of the alleged Swiss bank documents," Pampilo said.

Even assuming the bank officers could not possibly make the trip to the Philippines, there was no reason their testimonies could not be taken in Switzerland by deposition, the Court further said.