However, Sandiganbayan last January 25 denied the Marcoses’ bid to recover 23 assets, and now, declined again their motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.“The defendants implore the Court to reconsider its earlier ruling to deny the discretionary execution of judgment in the instant case pending appeal by insisting that there exists a good reason to justify the same.
“Essentially, the defendants pray for the return of subject properties recovered by the government, allegedly dissipated while under the administration of the PCGG, and center their arguments on the supposed illegality of the transfers made by virtue of compromise agreements and the lack of authority of the PCGG in entering into such contracts […] The Court is not persuaded,” Sandiganbayan added.
According to Sandiganbayan, a motion for reconsideration would be denied if the side that filed the said motion only rehashed the arguments previously presented, which was the case for the latest appeal. Earlier this year, Sandiganbayan said that there was still time for the PCGG to appeal their dismissal of the case before the Supreme Court, which means the Sandiganbayan decision junking the case is not yet final.Civil Case No. 002 was filed by PCGG against former president Marcos’ heirs, in an attempt to recover at least P200 billion allegedly plundered by the late strongman’s two-decade rule.
On top of the P200 billion being sought by the PCGG for actual damages, the commission also sought P50 billion in moral damages, and P250 million as compensation for expenses incurred in the process of recovery. From the supposed ill-gotten wealth, P976 million were deposited at the Security Bank and Trust Company, and another P711 million at the Traders Royal Bank.
Philippines Latest News, Philippines Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: CNN Philippines - 🏆 13. / 63 Read more »
Source: inquirerdotnet - 🏆 3. / 86 Read more »
Source: PhilippineStar - 🏆 7. / 71 Read more »
Source: gmanews - 🏆 11. / 68 Read more »
Source: inquirerdotnet - 🏆 3. / 86 Read more »
Source: inquirerdotnet - 🏆 3. / 86 Read more »