Garcia v.

Sandiganbayan (SB) 048

PET Garcia, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Comptrollership, AFP, was charged with violation of
RA 1379, by the OMB before the SB. Republic filed for writ of preliminary attachment, which SB
issued. PET argues in this petition for certiorari and prohibition that the SB has no jurisdiction
over the civil action for forfeiture but RTC has, and that it is the OSG which should have filed
the petition for forfeiture, not the OMB. SC disagrees. Also, forfeiture proceedings are civil in
nature, but the forfeiture of illegally acquired property amounts to penalty

FACTS
 PET Garcia was the Deputy Chief of Staff for Comptrollership, AFP
 Prosecution Officer of the Ombudsman (OMB), after due investigation, filed a complaint
against PET with OMB. Based on this, a case for violation of RA 1379 among others was
filed against PET
 Republic, through the OMB, filed before the SB, a Petition with Ex Parte Application for the
Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Attachment, seeking the forfeiture of unlawfully acquired
properties under Sec. 2, RA 13791
o alleged that the OMB, after conducting an inquiry similar to a preliminary
investigation in crim cases, has determined that a prima facie case exists against
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 issued writ of preliminary attachment
 PET filed present petition for certiorari and prohibition, arguing
o that SB is w/o jurisdiction over the civil action for forfeiture; that such jurisdiction
actually resides in RTCs under Sec. 2
o that it should have been the OSG which filed the petition and not the OMB
 SB comment:
o RP v SB: jurisdiction over violation of RA 1379 rests with the SB

1Whenever any public officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency an amount of property which is manifestly out of
proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired
property, said property shall be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired. The Solicitor General, upon complaint by any
taxpayer to the city or provincial fiscal who shall conduct a previous inquiry similar to preliminary investigations in criminal cases and
shall certify to the Solicitor General that there is reasonable ground to believe that there has been committed a violation of this Act and
the respondent is probably guilty thereof, shall file, in the name and on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, in the Court of First
Instance of the city or province where said public officer or employee resides or holds office, a petition for a writ commanding said
officer or employee to show cause why the property aforesaid, or any part thereof, should not be declared property of the State:
Provided, That no such petition shall be filed within one year before any general election or within three months before any special
election.
The resignation, dismissal or separation of the officer or employee from his office or employment in the Government or in the
Government-owned or controlled corporation shall not be a bar to the filing of the petition: Provided, however, That the right to file such
petition shall prescribe after four years from the date of the resignation, dismissal or separation or expiration of the term of the officer or
employee concerned, except as to those who have ceased to hold office within ten years prior to the approval of this Act, in which case
the proceedings shall prescribe after four years from the approval hereof.
 o Sec. 4.a (1) (d) of P.D. 16062, as amended, is the prevailing law on SB’s jurisdiction.
As PET falls squarely under the category of public positions covered by the said law,
the petition for forfeiture is within SB’s jurisdiction
o not accurate to refer to a petition for forfeiture as a "civil case”; petitions for
forfeiture are deemed criminal or penal and that it is only the proceeding for its
prosecution which is civil in nature
 OMB filed separate comment
o const’l power of investigation of the OMB Ombudsman is plenary and unqualified,
covers the unlawful acquisition of wealth by public officials under RA 1379; Sec. 15
(11) of RA 6770 expressly empowers the OMB to investigate and prosecute such
cases of unlawful acquisition of wealth
o all the requirements of RA 1379 have been strictly complied with. An inquiry similar
to a preliminary investigation was conducted by a Prosecution Officer of the OMB.
The participation of the OSG is actually no longer required

ISSUES & HOLDING

RATIO
ISSUE I
Jurisdiction over violations of RA 1379 is lodged with SB.
 RP v SB reviewed the legislative history of SB and of OMB:
o Originally, it was the SolGen who was authorized to initiate forfeiture proceedings
before the CFI
o Then, PD 1486, vested in SB original and exclusive jurisdiction over such violations
o P.D. No. 1606 then removed SB’s jurisdiction over civil actions brought in
connection with crimes within the exclusive jurisdiction of said court (among them
are forfeiture proceedings under RA 1379)
o BP 129 abolished the concurrent jurisdiction of the SB and the regular courts;
expanded the exclusive original jurisdiction of the SB over the offenses enumerated
in Sec. 4 of PD 1606 to embrace all such offenses irrespective of the imposable
penalty
o P.D. No. 1606 was again amended by PD 1860 and eventually by PD 1861 (penalty
prescribed by law must be higher than prision correccional or imprisonment for six
(6) years, or a fine of ₱6,000.00, RTCs and MTCs)

2 Sec. 4. Jurisdiction.—The SB shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving:
a. xxx Republic Act No. 1379 xxx
(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 specifically including:
(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher ranks.
Under RA 8249, the SB is vested with exclusive and orig.
jurisdiction in all cases involving violations of RA 1379.
 Where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the ff positions whether in a
permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:
o (d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher
rank
Forfeiture proceeding is civil in nature, but the forfeiture of the
illegally acquired property amounts to a penalty.
 RP v SB: forfeiture proceedings are actions in rem therefore civil in nature
 Almeda v Perez: proceedings under RA 1379 do not terminate in the imposition of a penalty
but merely in the forfeiture of illegally acquired properties; the procedure leading to
forfeiture is that provided for in a civil action
 Cabal v Kapunan: modified Almeda. Forfeiture of illegally acquired property partakes the
nature of a penalty. The doctrine in Almeda refers to the purely procedural aspect of the
forfeiture proceedings and has no bearing on the substantial rights of respondents,
particularly their constitutional right against self-incrimination
Logical that violations of 1379 are placed under SB’s
jurisdiction
o RA 1379 does not enumerate any prohibited acts the commission of which would
necessitate the imposition of a penalty. Instead, it provides the procedure for
forfeiture
o Section 12, RA 1379 provides a penalty but it is only imposed upon the public officer
or employee who transfers or conveys the unlawfully acquired property; it does not
penalize the officer or employee for making the unlawful acquisition.
o In effect, it imposes the penalty of forfeiture
 resp in such forfeiture proceedings is a public officer or employee and the violation of RA
1379 was committed during the resp’s incumbency and in relation to his office

ISSUE II
Office of OMB has authority to investigate, file and prosecute
petitions for forfeiture under RA 1379.
 Under Sec. 2, RA. 1379, it was the SolGen who was authorized to initiate forfeiture
proceedings before the CFI.
 PD. 1486 was then issued vesting the SB with jurisdiction over forfeiture proceedings. Sec.
12 of PD 1486 gave the Chief Special Prosecutor the authority to file and prosecute forfeiture
cases. This may be an implied repeal of the above.
 PD 1487 created OMB (then known as Tanodbayan (TB)). Initially, TB had no authority to
prosecute cases falling within SB’s jurisdiction, such authority being vested in the Chief
Special Prosecutor
 Then, PD 1606 expressly repealed PD 1486.
 Then, PD 1607 removed from the Chief Special Prosecutor the authority to file actions for
forfeiture under RA 1379.
 the implied repeal of PD 1486 by PD 1606 necessarily revived the authority of the SolGen to
file a petition for forfeiture, but not the jurisdiction of the CFI nor the authority of the
 Provincial/City Fiscals to conduct the preliminary investigation, since said powers remained
in the SB and the Chief Special Prosecutor.
 TB’s authority was further expanded by PD 1630 -- exclusive authority to conduct
preliminary investigation of all cases cognizable by the SB, to file informations thereforand
to direct and control the prosecution. The power to conduct the necessary investigation and to
file and prosecute the corresponding criminal and administrative cases before the SB was
also transferred from the Chief Special Prosecutor to the TB.
 1987 CONST. was subsequently ratified. Then, the OMB was officially created under R.A.
No. 6770.
o powers of the OMB, as defined by RA 6770, corollary to Sec. 13, Art. XI of CONST,
include the authority, to:
 (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 SB 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
 So it is the OMB who should file the petition for forfeiture. However, the OMB’s exercise of
the 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.
o As regards wealth accumulated on or before said date, the OMB is without authority
to commence before the SB such forfeiture action—since the authority to file
forfeiture proceedings on or before 25 February 1986 belongs to the SolGen—
although he has the authority to investigate such cases for forfeiture even before 25
February 1986, pursuant to the Ombudsman’s general investigatory power
 So Office of the OMB acted within its authority in conducting the investigation of PET’s
illegally acquired assets and in filing the petition for forfeiture. The contention that the
procedural requirements under Sec. 2 of RA 1379 were not complied with no longer deserve
consideration in view of the above

DISPOSITIVE
Petition dismissed.