Case Digest (G.R. No. 165835)
Facts:
Major General Carlos F. Garcia, then Deputy Chief of Staff for Comptrollership, filed a Petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 to annul the Sandiganbayan Resolution dated 29 October 2004 and the Writ of Preliminary Attachment dated 2 November 2004 issued in Civil Case No. 0193, wherein the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Ombudsman, sought forfeiture of allegedly unlawfully acquired property under R.A. No. 1379 against petitioner, his wife and three sons. The Office of the Ombudsman had earlier filed administrative and criminal complaints (Case No. OMB-P-C-04-1132-I et al.), and petitioner also moved to dismiss before the Sandiganbayan; he then filed the present petition while the motion was pending and furnished a Verification and Certification Against forum-shopping that did not disclose the pending motion.
Petitioner maintained that the Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction over separate forfeiture actions under R.A. No. 1379, that the procedural requisites of Sec. 2 were not observed and that only the Solicitor General could file such petitions, while respondents relied on Republic v. Sandiganbayan and subsequent statutes amending P.D. No. 1606 and related laws to assert Sandiganbayan jurisdiction and the Office of the Ombudsman's authority to investigate and prosecute such cases.
Issues:
- Does the Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction over petitions for forfeiture under R.A. No. 1379?
- Does the Office of the Ombudsman have authority to investigate, initiate and prosecute forfeiture petitions under R.A. No. 1379?
- Is petitioner guilty of forum-shopping by filing the present petition while a Motion to Dismiss raising the same issues was pending before the Sandiganbayan?
Ruling:
The Petition was DISMISSED. The Court held that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over violations of R.A. No. 1379 involving officials of the rank occupied by petitioner and that the Office of the Ombudsman acted within its authority in investigating and filing the forfeiture petition. The Court also found petitioner guilty of forum-shopping for failing to disclose a pending Motion to Dismiss and declared Atty. Constantino B. De Jesus in contempt, imposing a fine of P20,000, with costs against petitioner.
Ratio:
The Court relied on the controlling precedent in Republic v. Sandiganbayan and on the legislative and executive history of the Sandiganbayan, which, through successive presidential decrees and later statutory amendments including R.A. No. 8249, vested the Sandiganbayan with exclusive original jurisdiction over violations of R.A. No. 1379 where covered public officers are involved. Forfeiture proceedings, though in rem, partake of a penal or quasi-criminal character and therefore fall within the Sandiganbayan's remit. The Office of the Ombudsman derives authority from the Constitution and R.A. No. 6770, including Sec. 15(11), to investigate and initiate recovery of ill-gotten wealth amassed after 25 February 1986, and its exercise of that power in this case was lawful. Finally, the deliberate nondisclosure of the pending motion before the Sandiganbayan violated the certification against forum-shopping, warranting dismissal and sanction.
Doctrine:
- The Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over violations of R.A. No. 1379 involving officials covered by P.D. No. 1606 as amended and subsequent statutes.
- (Get Pro to unlock 5 more doctrines)