G.R. No. 90529 - Republic vs. Sandiganbayan

Two complainants, Messrs. Arnel Blancaflor and Rodolfo Santos of Kalookan City, filed a joint letter-complaint on January 8, 1989 alleging that respondent Macario Asistio, Jr.—the incumbent Mayor of Kalookan City—violated the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019), specifically Section 8, by amassing wealth disproportionate to his income.
It was alleged that during his term as mayor (1981, 1982, and 1983), Asistio deposited substantial sums into his personal bank account (CA-4670-00136-3) in the Republic Planters Bank, amounting to a total of P17,264,722.90.
Documentary evidence, including original bank deposit copies and machine-validated receipts covering deposits from January 5, 1981, to December 20, 1983, was attached to the complaint.

Respondent’s Sworn Statements of Assets and Liabilities for December 31, 1982, and December 31, 1984 revealed declared incomes (P234,128.68 and P255,324.02, respectively) that were grossly out of proportion to his bank deposits.
His total assets and outstanding loans were also disclosed, emphasizing the mismatch between his legitimate income and the significantly larger amounts deposited in his bank account.

A Preliminary Investigation was conducted by Special Prosecution Officer Margarito P. Gervacio, Jr., during which authenticated copies of the bank ledger were produced.
Based on the disproportionate figures between family income and bank deposits, the Ombudsman, through his investigation, found that respondent Asistio was “probably guilty” of having unlawfully acquired wealth in violation of Republic Act No. 1379 and/or Section 8 of RA 3019.

On March 31, 1989, the Ombudsman, under his authority provided by Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1379, endorsed the case to the Solicitor General, recommending appropriate action.
Consequently, on April 28, 1989, the Solicitor General filed a petition for forfeiture before the Sandiganbayan, representing the Republic in an action seeking to declare the questionable property as state property.

Respondent Asistio, through counsel, moved to dismiss the petition on three grounds:

Lack of jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over the case;
Alleged unconstitutionality of sections of Republic Act No. 1379 (and by extension RA 3019);
The contention that the petition did not state a valid cause of action.

In response, the Solicitor General argued that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction and that the petition is well-founded, while also contending that the authority to file forfeiture petitions should reside with his office.

The Sandiganbayan dismissed the petition on the rationale that, under amendments introduced by Presidential Decrees Nos. 1630 and 1861, the exclusive authority to file the petition for forfeiture was vested in the Ombudsman (formerly known as the Tanodbayan).
The Solicitor General, however, maintained that:

The special provision authorizing his filing of a petition under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1379 should prevail;
A distinction exists between information (criminal proceeding) and a petition for forfeiture (a civil in rem action), and, therefore, the powers granted by the law to him remain intact for such civil actions.

Historical legislative enactments, including Republic Act No. 1379; Presidential Decree Nos. 1486, 1606, 1607, 1630, 1860, and 1861; and relevant Executive Orders, are analyzed in depth.
The transformation of offices—specifically, the evolution of the Tanodbayan into the Office of the Ombudsman and the creation of a distinct Special Prosecutor role—forms a critical part of the dispute regarding the filing authority.
The legal analysis examined whether the transfer of jurisdiction over forfeiture cases to the Sandiganbayan concurrently transferred the authority to file such petitions from the Solicitor General to the Ombudsman.

Whether, under the revised statutory and constitutional framework, the authority to file a petition for forfeiture of unlawfully acquired wealth under Republic Act No. 1379 lies with the Ombudsman or remains vested in the Solicitor General.

Whether the amendments introduced by Presidential Decrees Nos. 1630 and 1861, which assigned the Office of the Tanodbayan (now the Ombudsman) with the exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigations and prosecute cases, also transferred the power to initiate forfeiture proceedings.
The legal distinction between an “information” (criminal proceeding) and a “petition for forfeiture” (a civil remedy) and the implication of that distinction for the proper filing authority.
Whether the authority to file a petition for forfeiture should depend on the date when the wealth was acquired, specifically distinguishing between assets acquired before and after February 25, 1986.
How the repeal and implied revival rules, such as those discussed in relation to Presidential Decree No. 1486, affect the authority originally granted to the Solicitor General.