The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that former first lady Imelda R. Marcos and her son, Rep. Ferdinand “Bongbong” R. Marcos II, are qualified to act as executors of the last will and testament of the late former President Ferdinand E. Marcos.

In a decision written by Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, the SC affirmed the ruling of the Pasig City regional trial court (RTC) that was upheld by
the Court of Appeals (CA) in 1997 as it dismissed the petition filed by the government through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).

The OSG claimed that Mrs. Marcos and her son have no moral integrity to act as executors because of their convictions in several cases.

The SC said that the CA did not commit an error in dismissing the OSG’s case on the ground that it was a wrong mode of appeal. But it said that even on the merits, the OSG’s petition should be dismissed for lack of merit.

“In order to reverse the findings of the RTC, this court must evaluate the evidence presented or alleged by petitioner (OSG) in support of its petition for disqualification. However, after a after a painstaking review of the records and evidence on hand, this court finds that the RTC committed no error In gross abuse of discretion when it ruled that petitioner failed to substantiate its allegations.”

The SC said Mrs. Marcos’ convictions in two criminal cases had been reversed. On the other hand, it pointed out that of the eight cases filed against “Bongbong,” four on the non-payment of deficiency taxes had been reversed by the CA, while the four others on the non-filing of income tax returns resulted in conviction.

But the SC said that on the four cases that resulted in conviction, the CA merely ordered “Bongbong to pay a fine for his failure to file his income tax return, and the case is still pending appeal.

It pointed out that even if Bongbong’s conviction is affirmed, it could not pose as a valid ground to disqualify him as executor since the offense is not considered a crime involving moral turpitude.

“The filing of a ‘fraudulent return with intent to evade tax’ is a crime involving moral turpitude as it entails willfulness and fraudulent intent on the part of the individual. The same, however, cannot be said for ‘failure to file a return’ where the mere omission already constitutes a violation. Thus, this court holds that even if the conviction of respondent Marcos II is affirmed, the same not being a crime involving moral turpitude cannot serve as a ground for his disqualification,” the SC ruled.