G.R. No. 170122 - Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan

On October 29, 2004, the Office of the Ombudsman filed Civil Case No. 0193 (“Forfeiture I”) under RA 1379 to recover PhP 143,052,015.29 from retired Maj. Gen. Carlos F. Garcia, his wife Clarita, and their three children.
On July 5, 2005, the Ombudsman filed Civil Case No. 0196 (“Forfeiture II”) under RA 1379 to recover PhP 202,005,980.55 from the same respondents.

On April 5, 2005, the Ombudsman filed Criminal Case No. 28107 under RA 7080 (plunder) in the Sandiganbayan Second Division, valuing the alleged plunder at PhP 303,272,005.99.
The plunder information covered substantially the same properties involved in the forfeiture cases.

Summons and a writ of attachment were issued and served on Maj. Gen. Garcia; Clarita and her children were served by substituted service through him at the PNP Detention Center.
November 2004 – The Garcias filed a motion to dismiss/quash for lack of jurisdiction; the Ombudsman moved to expunge and declare them in default.
January 20, 2005 – SB 4th Division denied the motion to dismiss, declared the Garcias in default, and set ex parte presentation of evidence.
February 3 & 23, 2005 – Denial of motions for reconsideration under the prohibited pleading rule.
May 20, 2005 – SB denied consolidation of Forfeiture I with the plunder case, ruling RA 8249 did not apply.
July 26, 2005 – Clarita filed a second motion to dismiss/quash; August 5 & 26, 2005 Orders “noted without action” due to standing default.

July 12–13, 2005 – Summons served on Maj. Gen. Garcia, who acknowledged receipt for himself and offered Clarita’s copies without guaranteeing delivery to the others.
July 26, 2005 – Clarita and her children filed a motion to dismiss/quash for lack of personal and subject-matter jurisdiction.
August 2005 – Republic filed opposition and motions for alternative service.
November 9, 2005 – SB 4th Division denied both the motion to dismiss/quash and the motion for alternative service.
January 24, 2006 – SB denied partial reconsideration of the November 9 Resolution.

G.R. No. 170122 – Petition for mandamus/certiorari to set aside the August 5 & 26, 2005 SB Orders in Forfeiture I, raising defects in personal and subject-matter jurisdiction, consolidation, implied repeal, and double jeopardy.
G.R. No. 171381 – Petition for certiorari to nullify the November 9, 2005 and January 24, 2006 SB resolutions in Forfeiture II on similar grounds.

Did the Sandiganbayan acquire jurisdiction over Clarita and her children given the substituted service through Maj. Gen. Garcia?
Do Clarita’s special-appearance motions constitute voluntary appearance that waives defects in service?

Did the pendency of the plunder case in the Second Division oust the SB 4th Division’s jurisdiction over the forfeiture cases?
Must forfeiture proceedings under RA 1379 be consolidated with a criminal plunder case under RA 7080?
Did RA 7080 impliedly repeal RA 1379 by creating an automatic forfeiture mechanism?

Do separate civil forfeiture and criminal plunder prosecutions violate double jeopardy?
Can automatic forfeiture under the plunder law reach properties located abroad?

Did the SB 4th Division act without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion by “noting without action” Clarita’s motions?