October 20,2008 news

Takeover of ABS-CBN was legal, SC rules
Lopezes agreed to pact with BenedictoBy Norman BordadoraPhilippine Daily InquirerFirst Posted 03:43:00 10/20/2008
Most Read
Other Most Read Stories x
News
Takeover of ABS-CBN was legal, SC rules
GSIS, Meralco feud on power purchase
Key Panlilio aide asked to resign
'Don't feel sorry for John McCain'
Mayor’s son walks from gun charge
18 canned meat products melamine-free
It’s Palin vs ‘Palin’
Chinese diplomat honored for saving thousands in Holocaust
One killed in Batangas payroll robbery
Swing votes may come from US 'Rust Belt'
PNP ‘motto:’ Have money, will travel
Arroyo thanks Shell for future cuts News Most Read RSS

-->
Close this
MANILA, Philippines—The Supreme Court has cleared the late Marcos crony, Roberto Benedicto, of any criminal liability in the takeover of the ABS-CBN broadcast network during the martial law years, saying its owners, the Lopez family, had consented to the arrangement.
The high court thus upheld a 1997 ruling by the Ombudsman declaring a 1973 letter-agreement between the Lopezes and Benedicto valid. The court said the Lopezes should pursue a civil, not criminal, suit against the estate of Benedicto and his associates.
In the decision penned by Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo Nachura, the high court noted that while the Lopezes denied freely entering into the lease agreement with Benedicto for the use of their network’s television and radio equipment and Quezon City premises, they “invoked the letter-agreement’s provisions, and made claims thereunder.”
The Lopezes in 1994 filed complaints for the crimes of execution of deeds by means of violence or intimidation, estafa (fraud), theft, robbery, occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights in property and other deceits against Benedicto and his fellow private respondents, who used the ABS-CBN facilities from 1973 until the fall of the Marcos regime in 1986.
Through intimidation
The Lopez family said it had signed the letter-agreement on the use of the network’s facilities on June 8, 1973, with Benedicto’s group on the expectation that rent would be paid and their scion, Eugenio Lopez Jr., would be released from detention.
The Lopezes said the agreement was forced on them through intimidation.
Then President Ferdinand Marcos padlocked all independent media companies when he declared martial law on Sept. 21, 1972, among these, the Lopez-owned ABS-CBN and Manila Chronicle newspaper; the Roces family-owned Channel 5 and the largest circulation Manila Times newspaper. Many media executives and journalists were jailed.A law school classmate and guerrilla buddy of Marcos, Benedicto was given control of several media outlets as well as the sugar industry, among others.
The Supreme Court, however, agreed with former Ombudsman Aniano Desierto that “although the petitioners may not have realized their expectations in entering into the letter-agreement, such does not render their consent thereto defective.”
“From the entirety of the records, it is beyond cavil that petitioners seek to attach criminal liability to an unequivocally civil undertaking gone awry,” the court’s Third Division said.
Letter-agreement provisions
It noted that the Lopezes had discussed with the Benedicto group the fixing of rental rates, written a demand letter for the occupation and use of the network’s property and equipment, and filed a claim against the estate of the late Benedicto—all based on the letter-agreement’s provisions.
“This action of petitioners clearly evinces their ratification of the letter-agreement,” the court said.
The final ruling, therefore, dismissed the Lopez petition against Benedicto and associate Salvador Tan but added that this was “without prejudice to the filing of separate civil actions against their respective estates.”
The court ruled that the Ombudsman did not abuse his discretion in ruling that the complaint was civil in nature.
The petition in question was filed by ABS-CBN, Eugenio Lopez Jr., Augusto Almeda Lopez and Oscar Lopez against then Ombudsman Desierto, Benedicto, Tan and two other respondents in 1994. After the Ombudsman dismissed the petition in 1997, the Lopezes took their case to the Supreme Court, charging that Desierto had acted with grave abuse of discretion