Writ of Execution vs. Ill-Gotten Wealth Based on Prima Facie Factual Foundation
The lifting of the sequestration orders by the court a quo despite its declaration that the bulk of the respondent's documents at best constitutes or tends to show proof that the properties covered therein are truly ill-gotten wealth clearly contravenes the law and applicable decisions of this Honorable Court.
In resolving this ground raised in petitioners motion for reconsideration of the Joint Decision, the Sandiganbayan stated:
x x x The clause the bulk of the respondents documents at best constitutes or tends to show proof that the properties covered therein are truly ill-gotten wealth contained in the assailed Joint Decision should not be lifted apart from the Courts statements immediately previous and subsequent thereto, in order merely to suit the respondents contention. It is very definite that the aforequoted clause, found in the middle of a single paragraph, was preceded by descriptions or categorization of specific documents offered by the respondent which do not at all establish prima facie factual foundation, and then followed by the categorical statement that they do not, on their face, indicate that the PCGG indeed deliberated on these matters to define a prima facie factual basis prior to the issuance of the writs of sequestration. To amplify further, the misconstrued clause merely emphasizes that those pieces of documentary evidence are irrelevant and do not disprove the petitioners position that the issuance of the writs of sequestration was not founded on a prima facie factual foundation, which is the real issue in these petitions, and that the respondent may find more relevance therein in the case to determine ill-gotten wealth against the petitioners. x x x
Clearly, petitioner should have interpreted the subject phrase in conjunction with the Sandiganbayan's finding that the issuance of the writs of execution was not based on a prima facie factual foundation. It must be emphasized that petitioners evidence does not show how the properties sequestered were acquired by respondents or that they are ill-gotten wealth, and whether former President Marcos intervened in their acquisition. (G.R. No. 173553-56; December 7, 2007)
In resolving this ground raised in petitioners motion for reconsideration of the Joint Decision, the Sandiganbayan stated:x x x The clause the bulk of the respondents documents at best constitutes or tends to show proof that the properties covered therein are truly ill-gotten wealth contained in the assailed Joint Decision should not be lifted apart from the Courts statements immediately previous and subsequent thereto, in order merely to suit the respondents contention. It is very definite that the aforequoted clause, found in the middle of a single paragraph, was preceded by descriptions or categorization of specific documents offered by the respondent which do not at all establish prima facie factual foundation, and then followed by the categorical statement that they do not, on their face, indicate that the PCGG indeed deliberated on these matters to define a prima facie factual basis prior to the issuance of the writs of sequestration. To amplify further, the misconstrued clause merely emphasizes that those pieces of documentary evidence are irrelevant and do not disprove the petitioners position that the issuance of the writs of sequestration was not founded on a prima facie factual foundation, which is the real issue in these petitions, and that the respondent may find more relevance therein in the case to determine ill-gotten wealth against the petitioners. x x x
Clearly, petitioner should have interpreted the subject phrase in conjunction with the Sandiganbayan's finding that the issuance of the writs of execution was not based on a prima facie factual foundation. It must be emphasized that petitioners evidence does not show how the properties sequestered were acquired by respondents or that they are ill-gotten wealth, and whether former President Marcos intervened in their acquisition. (G.R. No. 173553-56; December 7, 2007)