G.R. No.
165835 June 22, 2005
MAJOR GENERAL CARLOS F. GARCIA, Petitioner,
vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN and the OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
FACTS:
Petitioner was the Deputy Chief of Staff for Comptrollership, J6, of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines. Petitioner sought to annul and set aside public respondent Sandiganbayan’s
Resolution and Writ of Preliminary Attachment and to enjoin public respondents from further
proceeding with any action relating to the enforcement of the assailed issuances.
Petitioner argues 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. 29 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 P.D. No. 1606, as amended, and Executive
Orders E.O. Nos. 1411 and 14-A.
ISSUE:
Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over petitions for forfeiture under R.A. No.
1379
RULING:
Yes, the Sandiganbayan is vested with jurisdiction over violations of R.A. No. 1379, entitled
“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.” It establishes that it does not enumerate any prohibited acts the commission of
which would necessitate the imposition of a penalty. Instead, it provides the procedure for
forfeiture to be followed in case a public officer or employee 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. Section 1256 of the law 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. In effect, as observed
in Almeda, Sr. v. Perez, it imposes the penalty of forfeiture of the properties unlawfully
acquired upon the respondent public officer or employee.
Pursuant Sec. 2 of RA No. 1379, it was originally the OSG who was authorized to initiate
forfeiture proceedings before the then Court of First Instance of the city or province where
the public officer or employee resides or holds office. However with the enactment of PD No.
1486, creating the Sandiganbayan, the exclusive and original jurisdiction over such
violations was transferred to the latter. Subsequent amendments to PD No. 1486 only
served to strengthen the jurisdiction of the SB on violation of RA No. 1379. The latest, RA
No. 8249 specifically mentions members of the Philippine army and air force colonels, naval
captains, and all officers of higher rank as among those subject to the SB’s jurisdiction.
Also, even though a forfeiture proceeding is civil in nature, the SB still has jurisdiction over
the case since forfeiture of illegally acquired property partakes the nature of a penalty.
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 employee’s 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.
