Case Digest (G.R. No. 189434)
Facts:
In Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 189434 and 189505, April 25, 2012, the Supreme Court Second Division, Sereno, J., writing for the Court, resolved consolidated Rule 45 petitions seeking to set aside the Sandiganbayan’s 2 April 2009 Decision (Civil Case No. 0141) that granted the Republic’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and declared the assets of Arelma, S.A. forfeited to the State.The petitions were filed by Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. and Imelda Romualdez‑Marcos (petitioners); the respondent is the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and the Office of the Solicitor General. The original forfeiture action was instituted by the PCGG on 17 December 1991 under R.A. No. 1379, seeking forfeiture of Swiss bank accounts (initially USD 356 million, later quantified as about USD 658 million), two frozen treasury notes (USD 25M and USD 5M), and assets of various nominee corporations, including Arelma, said to be out of proportion to the Marcoses’ lawful income.
After the 1991 petition, the parties executed compromise agreements in December 1993 attempting a global settlement, and the Republic filed motions for summary judgment in 1996 and 2000. The Sandiganbayan first granted summary judgment in a 19 September 2000 Decision as to the five Swiss foundation accounts, but a 31 January 2002 Sandiganbayan Resolution denying that grant was later set aside by this Court in G.R. No. 152154 (the “Swiss Deposits Decision”), which reinstated the 2000 ruling and declared the Swiss deposits forfeited. Thereafter, on 16 July 2004 the Republic filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeking forfeiture of assets and interests of Arelma (estimated at USD 3,369,975 in 1983), and on 2 April 2009 the Sandiganbayan (Special Division, penned by Justice Norberto Y. Geraldez) granted that 2004 motion and forfeited the Arelma assets to the Republic.
Petitioners filed separate Rule 45 petitions in October 2009, subsequently consolidated, challenging the Sandiganbayan’s grant of partial summary judgment on four principal grounds: (1) that forfeiture proceedings under R.A. 1379 are criminal in nature and thus not amenable to summary judgment; (2) that the Republic failed to comply with R.A. 1375 (sic) Section 3(c), (d) and (e) requirement; (3) that Civil...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Are forfeiture proceedings under R.A. No. 1379 criminal in nature so as to preclude summary judgment?
- Did the Republic comply with the petition‑content requirements of Section 3(c), (d) and (e) of R.A. No. 1375 (as cited)?
- Has Civil Case No. 0141 terminated after the Swiss Deposits Decision such that the Sandiganbayan could no longer render partial summary judgment on other assets like Arelma?
- Did genuine, triable issues exist that would preclude the grant of...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)