Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan Digest (460 SCRA 588)

Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan
460 SCRA 588
June 22, 2005, TINGA

NATURE
Petitioner filed this Petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 to annul and set aside public respondent Sandiganbayan’s Resolution[1] dated 29 October 2004 and Writ of Preliminary Attachment[2] dated 2 November 2004, and to enjoin public respondents Sandiganbayan and Office of the Ombudsman from further proceeding with any action relating to the enforcement of the assailed issuances.

FACTS
-Major General Carlos F. Garcia was the Deputy Chief of Staff for Comptrollership of the AFP.
-On Sept27, 2004, Atty. Maria Olivia Roxas, Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer of the Field Investigation Office of the Office of the Ombudsman, after due investigation, filed a COMPLAINT vs. Garcia for VIOLATION OF
1. SECTION 8 (IN RE Section 11) of RA 6713(Code of Conduct of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees)
2. Art 183, RPC
3. Sec52(A)(1), (3) & (20) of the Civil Service Law
-based on this complaint, a case was filed vs. Petitioner
-Wife and 3 sons were impleaded for violation of RA 1379 insofar as they acted as conspirators, conduits, dummies and fronts of petitioner in receiving, accumulating, using and disposing of ill-gotten wealth
-Also, a PETITION W/ VERIFIED URGENT EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT was filed by Ombudsman before the SB vs. Garcia, his wife and 3 sons: Ombudsman, after conducting inquiry (similar to PI) has determined a prima facie case exists vs. Maj. Gen Garcia since during his incumbency as a soldier and public officer he acquired huge amounts of money and properties manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer and his other lawful income – SB GRANTED PETITION, ISSUED WRIT OF PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT

-Garcia filed MTD then this PETITION (same day):
a.LACK OF JURISDICTION over forfeiture proceedings (CIVIL ACTION) under RA 1379 – should be w/ RTC as provided under SEC2(9) of the law
b. Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction in Civil Actions pertains only to separate actions for recovery of unlawfully acquired property vs. Pres. Marcos etc.
c. SB was intended principally as a criminal court
BASIS: Presidential issuances and laws
d. Granting that SB has jurisdiction, petition for forfeiture is fatally defective for failing to comply with jurisdictional requirements under RA 1379, SEC2:
i. inquiry similar to a PI
ii. Certification to SOLGEN of prima facie case – here: no certification
iii. action filed by SOLGEN - here: by Ombudsman

COMMENT by SB:
1.Republic vs. SB: “there is no issue that jurisdiction over violations of [R.A.] Nos. 3019 and 1379 now rests with the Sandiganbayan.”
2. Under Consti and prevailing statutes, SB is vested w/ authority and jurisdiction over the petition for forfeiture under RA 1379
3. Section4a(1), PD 1606, not Section 2(9), RA 1379 should be made the basis of SB’s jurisdiction:
a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:
(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade ‘27’ and higher of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including:
….
(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher ranks;
….
4. SB’s jurisdiction based on PD 1606 encompasses all cases involving violations of RA 3019 IRRESPECTIVE OF WON THESE CASES ARE CIVIL OR CRIMINAL IN NATURE

COMMENT BY OMBUDSMAN:
1. Republic vs. SB
2. Grant of jurisdiction over violations of RA 1379 did not change even under the amendments of RA7975 and RA 8294, though it came to be limited to cases involving high-ranking public officials
3. It has authority to investigate and initiate forfeiture proceedings vs. petitioner based on COnsti and RA 6770: The constitutional power of investigation of the Office of the Ombudsman is plenary and unqualified; its power to investigate any act of a public official or employee which appears to be “illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient” covers the unlawful acquisition of wealth by public officials as defined under R.A. No. 1379
4. Section 15, RA 6770 expressly empowers Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute such cases of unlawful acquisition of wealth.
5. ON REQUIREMENTS under RA 1379: inquiry was conducted similar to PI + SOLGEN’s participation no longer required since Ombudsman endowed w/ authority to investigate and prosecute
6. dismiss petition for forum shopping: MTD was already filed before SB

REPLY by Garcia
1. SB’s criminal jurisdiction is separate and distinct from its civil jurisdiction : SB’s jurisdiction over forfeiture cases had been removed w/o subsequent amendments expressly restoring such civil jurisdiction
2. Petition for forfeiture is not an ancilliary action for the criminal action against him, so not under jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan

ISSUES
1. WON SB has jurisdiction over petitions for forfeiture under RA 1379
2. WON Ombudsman has authority to investigate, initiate and prosecute such petitions for forfeiture
3. WON petitioner is guilty of forum shopping

HELD
Petition W/O MERIT, dismissed

1. SB HAS JURISDICTION
Reasoning:
*Republic vs. Sandiganbayan: Originally, SOLGEN was authorized to initiate forfeiture proceedings before then CFI of the city or province where the public officer/employee resides or holds office [RA 1379, SEC2]
…Upon the creation of the Sandiganbayan [PD 1486], original and exclusive jurisdiction over such violations was vested in SB.
…PD 1606: repealed 1486 and modified jurisdiction of SB by removing its jurisdiction over civil actions brought in connection w/ crimes w/n exclusive jurisdiction of SB, including:
> restitution or reparation for damages
>recovery of instruments and effects of the crime
>civil actions under Art32 and 34 of the Civil Code
>and forfeiture proceedings provided under RA 1379
…BP 129: abolished concurrent jurisdiction of SB and regular courts, expanded EOJ of SB over offenses enumerated in SEC4 of PD1606 to embrace all such offenses irrespective of imposable penalty.
…PD1606 was later amended by PD 1869 and eventually by PD 1861 because of the proliferation of filing cases w/ penalty not higher than PC or its equivalent and even such cases not serious in nature
jurisdiction over violations of RA 3019 and 1379 is lodged w/ SB
…under RA 8249: SB vested w/ EOJ in all cases involving violations of :
>>RA 3019
>>RA 1379
>>ChapII, Sec2, Title VII, Book II of the RPC
Where 1 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 (see above)

ON CIVIL NATUR OF FORFEITURE ACTIONS
-they are actions in rem, therefore, civil in nature BUT FORFEITURE OF AN ILLEGALLY ACQUIRED PROPERTY PARTAKES THE NATURE OF A PENALTY [as discussed in Cabal vs. Kapunan]

SB VESTED W/ JURISDICTION OVER VIOLATIONS OF RA 1379 [“An Act Declaring Forfeiture In Favor of the State Any Property Found to Have Been Unlawfully Acquired By Any Public Officer or Employee and Providing For the Proceedings Therefor.”]: the law provides a procedure for forfeiture in case a public officer has acquired during his incumbency an amount of property manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his lawful income and income from legitimately acquired property. No penalty for the public officer for unlawful acquisition but the law imposes forfeiture as a penalty for unlawfully acquired properties

2. YES, as resolved in Republic vs. SB (it was the main issue there)
RA 1379, Sec2: SOLGEN authorized to initiate forfeiture proceedings
PD 1486: vested SB w/ jurisdiction over RA 1379 forfeiture proceedings
…Sec12: Chief Special Prosecutor has authority to file and prosecute forfeiture cases, not SOLGEN, to SB, not CFI (BUT THIS IS JUST AN IMPLIED REPEAL as may be derived from the repealing clause of PD 1486)
PD 1487: created Ombudsman
PD 1606 repealed expressly PD 1486
PD 1607 provided that Office of the Chief Special Prosecutor has exclusive authority to conduct preliminary investigation of all cases cognizable by the SB, file info therefore, and direct and control prosecution of said cases
…also removed authority to file actions for forfeiture under RA 1379
the repeal of P.D. No. 1486 by P.D. No. 1606 necessarily revived the authority of the Solicitor General to file a petition for forfeiture under R.A. No. 1379, but not the jurisdiction of the Courts of First Instance over the case nor the authority of the Provincial or City Fiscals (now Prosecutors) to conduct the preliminary investigation therefore, since said powers at that time remained in the Sandiganbayan and the Chief Special Prosecutor.
PD 1630: expanded the Tanodbayan’s authority: given exclusive authority to conduct PI of all cases cognizable by SB, to file info therefore and to direct and control the prosecution of said cases
**1987 CONSTI enacted
RA 6770 + ART XI, SEC 13 of 1987 CONSTI: POWERS OF OMBUDSMAN:
1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. It has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of this primary jurisdiction, may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of Government, the investigation of such cases;
…
(11) Investigate and initiate the proper action for the recovery of ill-gotten and/or unexplained wealth amassed after 25 February 1986 and the prosecution of the parties involved therein.
It is the Ombudsman who should file petition for forfeiture under RA 1379
BUT powers to investigate and initiate 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 FEB 1986

3. ON FORUM SHOPPING: GUILTY!
–Garcia failed to inform the court that he had filed a MTD in relation to the petition for forfeiture before the SB.
A scrutiny of the Motion to Dismiss reveals that petitioner raised substantially the same issues and prayed for the same reliefs therein as it has in the instant petition. In fact, the Arguments and Discussion[89] in the Petition of petitioner’s thesis that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over separate civil actions for forfeiture of unlawfully acquired properties appears to be wholly lifted from the Motion to Dismiss. The only difference between the two is that in the Petition, petitioner raises the ground of failure of the petition for forfeiture to comply with the procedural requirements of R.A. No. 1379, and petitioner prays for the annulment of the Sandiganbayan’s Resolution dated 29 October 2004 and Writ of Preliminary Attachment dated 2 November 2004. Nevertheless, these differences are only superficial. Both Petition and Motion to Dismiss have the same intent of dismissing the case for forfeiture filed against petitioner, his wife and their sons. It is undeniable that petitioner had failed to fulfill his undertaking. This is incontestably forum-shopping which is reason enough to dismiss the petition outright, without prejudice to the taking of appropriate action against the counsel and party concerned.