SC reverses Imelda Marcos’ graft conviction

The Supreme Court reversed the Sandiganbayan conviction of former First Lady Imelda Marcos over seven counts of graft involving her alleged financial interests in private foundations in Switzerland.

In a ruling penned by Justice Rodil V. Zalameda dated 10 June 2026, the Supreme Court’s First Division released the decision to the public on Wednesday, 9 September 2026.

The ruling sets aside the anti-graft court’s landmark decision on 9 Nov. 2018 finding Marcos guilty of seven violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Marcos had been sentenced by the Sandiganbayan to prison terms ranging from six years and one month to 11 years for each count, along with perpetual disqualification from holding public office. The anti-graft court had also acquitted her on three other graft charges.

The case stemmed from allegations that Marcos—while serving as governor of Metro Manila and holding other government positions during the administration of her husband, the late president Ferdinand E. Marcos—maintained financial interests in several private foundations based in Switzerland.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The high court's decision to acquit 97-year-old Imelda Marcos focused heavily on technical legal rules regarding the admissibility of evidence and the failure of the prosecution to meet the statutory requirements of the graft law.

Among the key technical and legal grounds detailed in the 50-page ruling was the inadmissibility of the Swiss bank documents. While the Sandiganbayan's 2018 conviction relied on records retrieved from Swiss banks that outlined Marcos's financial interests in the private foundations, the high bench ruled that the anti-graft court erred in treating these private documents as duly authenticated. It noted that the prosecution failed to present a credible witness who could explicitly testify to the authenticity of those private records, emphasizing that private documents are generally inadmissible unless properly authenticated to prevent the inclusion of spurious or unverified evidence at trial.

Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove the required elements under Section 3(h) of the Graft Law. Marcos was charged with violating Section 3(h) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019), which penalizes public officials for holding financial interests in any business, contract, or transaction prohibited by the Constitution. The Court ruled that even setting aside the evidentiary flaws, the prosecution still failed to establish that her alleged pecuniary interests fell under the specific prohibitions of Section 3(h) or the 1973 Constitution.