Case Digest (G.R. No. 86926)
Facts:
Cesar E. A. Virata v. The Honorable Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 86926) and Placido L. Mapa v. The Honorable Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 86949), October 15, 1991, the Supreme Court En Banc, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court.The suits below arise from Civil Case No. 0035 filed in the Sandiganbayan on 31 July 1987 by the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) with the assistance of the Solicitor General, against Benjamin Romualdez and forty‑four others for recovery of alleged ill‑gotten wealth. The original complaint was amended several times, culminating in a Second Amended Complaint expanded and filed on 20 January 1988 that named, among many others, petitioners Cesar E.A. Virata and Placido L. Mapa, Jr. as co‑defendants and alleged (inter alia) that they acted as dummies, nominees or agents of Marcos‑linked persons and participated in schemes (e.g., tax reductions for MERALCO, manipulation of corporate formations, transactions with Philguarantee/Erectors) resulting in unjust enrichment of the accused.
Petitioners moved separately to dismiss the expanded Second Amended Complaint in the Sandiganbayan. On 28 October 1988 the Sandiganbayan denied both motions, holding the pleading stated viable causes of action under the Executive Orders (Nos. 1, 2 and 14) and Proclamation No. 3 (the Provisional/Freedom Constitution), and citing precedents upholding the PCGG’s authority and the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction (e.g., Bataan Shipyard & Engineering Co., Inc. (BASECO) v. PCGG, PCGG v. Pena, among others). Motions for reconsideration were denied on 20 January 1989 as repetitive.
Petitioners then filed separate petitions for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for restraining order/injunction before the Supreme Court: the Virata petition on 17 February 1989 and the Mapa petition on 20 February 1989; the Court consolidated the petitions. Petitioners principally contended that the Sandiganbayan acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion by (a) finding the complaint sufficient, (b) holding the PCGG and Solicitor General had authority to file and prosecute under the 1987 Constitution (arguing the Tanodbayan/Ombudsman holds such powers), (c) ruling the PCGG had not become functus officio, (d) upholding the PCGG Charter against equal protection, bill of a...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Sandiganbayan act without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners' motions to dismiss the expanded Second Amended Complaint?
- Do the PCGG and the Solicitor General have the authority to file and prosecute the complaint despite the provisions of the 1987 Constitution vesting investigatory powers in the Tanodbayan/Ombudsman?
- Had the PCGG become functus officio such that it no longer possessed authority to investigate or prosecute these cases?
- Does the PCGG Charter (Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2 and 14) violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 1987 Constitution?
- Is the PCGG Charter a bill of attainder?
- Is the PCGG Charter an ex post facto law?
- Was petitioner Virata denied due process b...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)