Case Summary (G.R. No. 170122)
Petitioner
Clarita Depakakibo Garcia
Respondents
- Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division
- Republic of the Philippines
Key Dates
• October 29, 2004: Filing of Civil Case No. 0193 (Forfeiture I; Php 143,052,015.29)
• April 5, 2005: Filing of plunder Information (Crim. Case No. 28107; Php 303,272,005.99)
• July 5, 2005: Filing of Civil Case No. 0196 (Forfeiture II; Php 202,005,980.55)
• January 20, 2005: First denial of motion to dismiss and order declaring the Garcias in default (Forfeiture I)
• November 9, 2005: Denial of motion to dismiss and alternative service in Forfeiture II
• January 24, 2006: Denial of reconsideration in Forfeiture II
• March 13, 2006: Consolidation of G.R. Nos. 170122 and 171381
• October 12, 2009: Decision date
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution
• Republic Act No. 1379 (Forfeiture of Unlawfully Acquired Property)
• Republic Act No. 7080 (Anti-Plunder Law)
• Executive Order No. 14 (1986)
• 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 14 on service of summons)
Factual Background
The Ombudsman filed two independent civil suits for forfeiture under RA 1379—Forfeiture I and II—to recover alleged ill-gotten wealth accumulated by the Garcias. In parallel, it filed a criminal Information for plunder under RA 7080. The Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division, denied the Garcias’ motions to dismiss or quash the civil suits on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, consolidation with the plunder case, and alleged implied repeal of RA 1379 by RA 7080. The petitioner filed petitions for certiorari and mandamus (G.R. Nos. 170122 and 171381) challenging various orders that refused to resolve her motions and declared her in default.
Jurisdiction over Subject Matter and Relation to Plunder Case
The Court held that civil forfeiture under RA 1379 is a separate, independent proceeding from a criminal plunder prosecution under RA 7080. Forfeiture actions arise from a statutory presumption of disproportionate wealth and proceed on a preponderance-of-evidence standard, whereas plunder is a criminal offense requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt of overt acts evidencing a conspiracy to amass ill-gotten wealth. The filing of the plunder case did not divest the Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division, of jurisdiction over the separate civil forfeiture actions, nor did the two proceedings pose a double jeopardy problem or risk conflicting decisions.
Distinct Causes of Action: Civil Forfeiture vs. Criminal Plunder
– RA 1379 suits protect the State’s right to recover unlawfully acquired property; no criminal intent need be established.
– RA 7080 penalizes the crime of plunder and mandates automatic forfeiture upon conviction.
– Executive Order No. 14 and jurisprudence confirm that forfeiture suits proceed independently of criminal proceedings.
No Implied Repeal of RA 1379 by RA 7080
RA 7080 did not expressly or impliedly repeal RA 1379. The two statutes serve complementary but distinct purposes—one civil (recovery of property) and one penal (punishment for plunder). Doubts must be resolved to harmonize both laws.
Defective Service of Summons and Lack of Jurisdiction over Persons
Valid service of summons is required for a court to acquire personal jurisdiction. The petitioner and her sons were not personally served; instead, substituted service was effected through Maj. Gen. Garcia at the PNP Detention Center. Under Rule 14, Sec. 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, substituted service requires:
- Proof of the impossibility of personal service after at least three attempts on different dates;
- Specific factual details in the return; and
- Delivery to a person of suitable age at the defendant’s residence or competent person at the defendant’s place of business.
These requirements were not met. Consequently, the S
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 170122)
Nature of the Petitions
- Two consolidated petitions under Rule 65: G.R. No. 170122 (mandamus and/or certiorari) and G.R. No. 171381 (certiorari).
- G.R. No. 170122 seeks to nullify the Sandiganbayan’s August 5 and August 26, 2005 Orders denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss/quash Civil Case No. 0193.
- G.R. No. 171381 seeks to nullify the Sandiganbayan’s November 9, 2005 Resolution (and January 24, 2006 denial of reconsideration) denying motion to dismiss/quash Civil Case No. 0196.
- Relief prayed: issuance of certiorari and/or mandamus to overturn the challenged Sandiganbayan issuances.
Parties and Underlying Forfeiture Actions
- Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Ombudsman, filed two civil forfeiture petitions under R.A. 1379.
- Respondents in both cases: Clarita Depakakibo Garcia and her immediate family (the Garcias).
- Civil Case No. 0193 (“Forfeiture I”): PhP 143,052,015.29; filed October 29, 2004; raffled to the Fourth Division of the Sandiganbayan.
- Civil Case No. 0196 (“Forfeiture II”): PhP 202,005,980.55; filed July 5, 2005; also raffled to the Fourth Division.
- A related plunder charge (Criminal Case No. 28107) was filed April 5, 2005 under R.A. 7080 for PhP 303,272,005.99; pending before the Second Division of the Sandiganbayan.
Procedural History of Forfeiture I (Civil Case No. 0193)
- October 29, 2004: writ of attachment issued; challenged before the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 165835).
- Summons personally served on Maj. Gen. Carlos F. Garcia at detention; substituted service on co-respondents through him.
- Petitioner’s first motion to dismiss/quash for lack of jurisdiction; Ombudsman moved to expunge and declare default.
- January 20, 2005 Resolution: motion to dismiss denied; petitioners declared in default.
- February 3 and 23, 2005 Resolutions: motions for reconsideration denied.
- May 20, 2005: motion to transfer/consolidate with the plunder case denied.
- July 26, 2005: second motion to dismiss/quash on new jurisdictional and double jeopardy grounds.
- August 5, 2005 Order: second motion “noted without action” due to standing default.
- August 26, 2005 Order: petition for reconsideration of August 5 Order denied.
Procedural History of Forfeiture II (Civil Case No. 0196)
- July 12–13, 2005: summons served via PNP Detention Center custodian; General Garcia acknowledged receipt with qualification.
- July 26, 2005: motion to dismiss/quash for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction; Republic’s opposition and motion for alternative service.
- August 25, 2005: renewed motion for alternative service.
- November 9, 2005 Joint Resolution: denied petitioner’s motion to d