Garcia vs Sandiganbayan, GR.

165835, Jun 22, 2005

FACTS:

Petitioner Major General Carlos F. Garcia was the Deputy Chief of Staff for Comptrollership of the AFP.
Petitioner seeks to annul and set aside public respondent Sandiganbayan, and to enjoin public
respondents Sandiganbayan and Office of the Ombudsman from further proceeding.

On 27 September 2004, Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer II of the Office of the Ombudsman,
after due investigation, filed a complaint against petitioner with public respondent Office of the
Ombudsman, for violation of Sec. 8, in relation to Sec. 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713, violation of
Art. 183 of the Revised Penal Code, and violation of Section 52 (A)(1), (3) and (20) of the Civil Service
Law. Based on this complaint, a case for Violations of R.A. No. 1379, Art. 183 of the Revised Penal Code,
and Sec. 8 in relation to Sec. 11 of R.A. No. 6713, docketed as Case.

On the same day, the Republic of the Philippines, acting through public respondent Office of the
Ombudsman, filed before the Sandiganbayan, a Petition with Verified Urgent Ex Parte Application for
the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Attachment against petitioner, his wife, and three sons, seeking the
forfeiture of unlawfully acquired properties under Sec. 2 of R.A. No. 1379, as amended.

Subsequently, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss in Civil Case No. 0193 (forfeiture case) on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over forfeiture proceedings under R.A. No. 1379. On even
date, petitioner filed the present Petition, raising the same issue of lack jurisdiction on the part of the
Sandiganbayan.

Petitioner argues in this Petition that the Sandiganbayan is without jurisdiction over the civil action for
forfeiture of unlawfully acquired properties under R.A. No. 1379, maintaining that such jurisdiction
actually resides in the Regional Trial Courts as provided under Sec. 2[9] of the law, and that the jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan in civil actions pertains only to separate actions for recovery of unlawfully acquired
property against President Marcos, his family, and cronies as can be gleaned from Sec. 4 of Presidential
Decree (P.D.) No. 1606.

Petitioner further contends that in any event, the petition for forfeiture filed against him is fatally
defective for failing to comply with the jurisdictional requirements under Sec. 2, R.A. No. 1379, namely:
(a) an inquiry similar to a preliminary investigation conducted by the prosecution arm of the
government; (b) a certification to the Solicitor General that there is reasonable ground to believe that
there has been violation of the said law and that respondent is guilty thereof; and (c) an action filed by
the Solicitor General on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. He argues that only informations for
perjury were filed and there has been no information filed against him for violation of R.A. No. 1379 and
that the Solicitor General should have been the one who filed the complaint and not the Ombudsman.
ISSUE(S):

(a) Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over petitions for forfeiture under R.A. No. 1379; and

(b) Whether the Office of the Ombudsman has the authority to investigate, initiate and prosecute such
petitions for forfeiture

RULING:

The petition is patently without merit. It should be dismissed.

Under R.A. No. 8249, the Sandiganbayan is vested with exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases
involving violations of R.A. No. 3019, R.A. No. 1379, and Chapter II, Sec. 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised
Penal Code, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions whether
in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense: (refer to the
enumeration under Sec. 4 of RA 8249).

On the face of the prevailing jurisprudence and the present state of statutory law on the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan, petitioners argument that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the petition for
forfeiture it being civil in nature and the Sandiganbayan allegedly having no jurisdiction over civil actions
collapsed completely.

The civil nature of an action for forfeiture was first recognized in Republic v. Sandiganbayan, thus: The
rule is settled that forfeiture proceedings are actions in rem and, therefore, civil in nature.

It is logically congruent, therefore, that violations of R.A. No. 1379 are placed under the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan, even though the proceeding is civil in nature, since the forfeiture of the illegally
acquired property amounts to a penalty. The soundness of this reasoning becomes even more obvious
when we consider that the respondent in such forfeiture proceedings is a public officer or employee and
the violation of R.A. No. 1379 was committed during the respondent officer or employees incumbency
and in relation to his office. This is in line with the purpose behind the creation of the Sandiganbayan
as an anti-graft court to address the urgent problem of dishonesty in public service.

Ostensibly, it is the Ombudsman who should file the petition for forfeiture under R.A. No. 1379 (R.A. No.
6770, corollary to Sec. 13, Art. XI of the Constitution). However, the Ombudsman’s exercise of the
correlative powers to investigate and initiate the proper action for recovery of ill-gotten and/or
unexplained wealth is restricted only to cases for the recovery of ill-gotten and/or unexplained wealth
amassed after 25 February 1986. As regards such wealth accumulated on or before said date, the
Ombudsman is without authority to commence before the Sandiganbayan such forfeiture action since the
authority to file forfeiture proceedings on or before 25 February 1986 belongs to the Solicitor General
although he has the authority to investigate such cases for forfeiture even before 25 February 1986,
pursuant to the Ombudsman’s general investigatory power under Sec. 15 (1) of R.A. No. 6770.

Prepared by: Matabuena