Case Summary (G.R. No. L-19328)
Procedural Posture
Two actions were filed and jointly tried: Civil Case No. 30823 (the Katigbaks’ complaint seeking, among other reliefs, injunction against prosecution under R.A. No. 1379 and declaration of that statute’s unconstitutionality as to retroactivity) and Civil Case No. 31080 (the Republic’s forfeiture action under R.A. No. 1379 to recover properties allegedly unlawfully acquired by Alejandro Katigbak). The trial court dismissed the complaint and counterclaim in No. 30823 and, in No. 31080, declared certain properties acquired in 1953–1955 illegal under R.A. No. 1379 and imposed a government lien (initially P100,000, later reduced to P80,000 on reconsideration). The Katigbaks appealed, raising multiple errors focused principally on the retroactive application of R.A. No. 1379 and related constitutional objections.
Reliefs Sought by the Parties
Katigbaks sought (inter alia): (1) injunction against prosecution under R.A. No. 1379; (2) declaration that R.A. No. 1379 is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes forfeiture of properties acquired before enactment; (3) exclusion from forfeiture of properties acquired while Katigbak was not in government service; and (4) damages against NBI officers and the Investigating Prosecutor. The Republic sought forfeiture of properties alleged to have been unlawfully acquired by Alejandro Katigbak while holding government positions.
Central Legal Issue Presented
Whether Republic Act No. 1379 may be constitutionally applied to effect forfeiture (or impose other penal consequences) on properties acquired by a public officer before the enactment of the statute — i.e., whether application of R.A. No. 1379 to pre-enactment acquisitions constitutes a forbidden ex post facto law (and relatedly whether compelled explanation of acquisition violates the privilege against self-incrimination and whether the law could affect third-party mortgagees in good faith).
Trial Court Findings Adopted on Factual Matters
The trial court (1) found no proof that the prosecuting fiscal acted with malice or bad faith in the preliminary investigation and consequent filing of the forfeiture case; (2) found that Katigbak had competent counsel during the preliminary investigation; and (3) found that Katigbak’s testimony in the proceedings was voluntary. The trial court nonetheless declared certain properties acquired in 1953–1955 illegal under R.A. No. 1379 and enforced a lien in favor of the Government in a monetary amount (ultimately P80,000).
Controlling Precedents and Character of R.A. No. 1379
The Supreme Court relied on prior decisions that characterized forfeiture under R.A. No. 1379 as penal in nature. In Cabal v. Kapunan, Jr. the Court held that forfeiture of a public officer’s property manifestly out of proportion to lawful income partakes of the nature of a penalty, and that forfeiture proceedings, though civil in form, are deemed penal for purposes of invoking protections such as the privilege against self-incrimination. That doctrinal classification was reaffirmed in Republic v. Agoncillo. The Court also cited de la Cruz v. Better Living, Inc. for the principle that anti-corruption statutes cannot be given retroactive effect.
Legal Reasoning on Ex Post Facto and Retroactivity
Because the forfeiture remedy provided by R.A. No. 1379 is penal in nature, its application to acts or acquisitions that occurred before the statute’s enactment would impose punishment for conduct that was not punishable by that statute when done. Such retroactive application therefore runs afoul of the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws (i.e., laws that make criminal an act that was innocent when done or that impose a penalty or deprivation for a past act that was lawful at the time). Accordingly, the Court held that the trial court erred in declaring illegal and subject to forfeiture those properties acquired in 1953–1955 under R.A. No. 1379.
Application of the Law to the Katigbak Case and Holding
The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court’s declaration that certain acquisitions made in 1953, 1954 and 1955 were illegal under R.A. No. 1379 and the imposition of a government lien (in the amount fixed by the trial court) constituted impermissible retroactive application of a penal forfeiture statute. The Supreme Court
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-19328)
Background and Certification to the Supreme Court
- The cases were certified to the Supreme Court by the Court of Appeals for resolution on appeal pursuant to the referral of central constitutional questions concerning Republic Act No. 1379.
- The referral raised whether R.A. No. 1379, "An Act Declaring Forfeiture in Favor of the State of Any Property Found To Have Been Unlawfully Acquired by Any Public Officer or Employee and Providing for the Proceedings Therefor," is unconstitutional insofar as it: (a) operates as an ex post facto law authorizing confiscation of property acquired before its enactment and compels a public official to explain acquisition of private properties thereby compelling self-incrimination and effectively enabling confiscation without due process; and (b) authorizes confiscation of immovable property previously mortgaged in good faith.
- The referral resolution quoted in the record contains a Spanish-language formulation of the questioned scope of the statute.
Parties, Cases and Pleadings
- Two actions originated in the Court of First Instance of Manila and were jointly tried:
- Civil Case No. 30823: Instituted by Spouses Alejandro Katigbak and Mercedes K. Katigbak. Their complaint sought: (1) injunction preventing the Solicitor General from filing a forfeiture complaint under R.A. No. 1379; (2) a declaration that the statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes forfeiture of properties acquired before its approval, or alternatively an order for a new preliminary investigation of the complaint filed against Alejandro Katigbak by NBI officers; (3) exclusion from forfeiture of properties Alejandro Katigbak acquired while out of government service; and (4) that NBI officers and Investigating Prosecutor Leonardo Lucena be sentenced to pay damages.
- Civil Case No. 31080: Filed by the Republic of the Philippines against Alejandro Katigbak, his wife Mercedes, and his son Benedicto, seeking forfeiture in favor of the State of properties allegedly illegally obtained by Alejandro Katigbak in violation of R.A. No. 1379. The properties were alleged to have been acquired while Katigbak held various government positions, the last being examiner of the Bureau of Customs, and some titles were recorded in the names of his wife and/or son.
Trial Court Proceedings and Judgment
- The two cases were jointly tried before the Court of First Instance of Manila, and the trial court rendered a judgment that:
- Dismissed the complaint and counterclaim in Civil Case No. 30823.
- In Civil Case No. 31080, ordered that from the properties of Katigbak enumerated as acquired in 1953, 1954 and 1955, a lien in favor of the Government in the sum of P100,000.00 shall be enforced.
- The trial court found that the "impatience of the Investigating Prosecutor" during the preliminary inquiry did not constitute such arbitrariness as would justify annulment of the proceedings because Katigbak was able to fully ventilate his side of the case at trial.
- The trial court declared that R.A. No. 1379 is not penal in nature, holding that its objective was the recovery of property held under an implied trust rather than enforcement of penal liability.
- The trial court held that prescription does not run in favor of an offender with respect to things acquired through delicts.
- The trial court concluded that Alejandro Katigbak voluntarily took the witness stand, and therefore could not be deemed to have been compelled to testify against his will.
Motion for Reconsideration and Trial Court Modification
- The Katigbaks moved for reconsideration and/or new trial.
- The trial court refused to grant a new trial but modified the dispositive portion by reducing the lien previously ordered from P100,000.00 to P80,000.00.
Appeal, Issues Raised and Scope of Review
- The Katigbaks appealed to the Court of Appeals; the appeal was later certified to the Supreme Court for resolution of the central constitutional issue.
- The