Case Summary (G.R. No. 271012)
Key Dates
• 25 Feb 1986 – EDSA Revolution; abolition of the 1973 Constitution in practice
• 27 Jul 1987 – AFP Anti‐Graft Board issues findings against Ramas
• 1 Aug 1987 – PCGG files forfeiture petition under RA 1379
• 18 Nov 1991 and 25 Mar 1992 – Sandiganbayan resolutions dismissing the complaint
• 21 Jul 2003 – Supreme Court decision
Applicable Legal Framework
• 1987 Philippine Constitution – Bill of Rights (search and seizure, due process)
• Executive Order No. 1 – Creation of PCGG; investigation powers over Marcos cronies and subordinates
• Republic Act No. 1379 – Forfeiture of Unlawfully Acquired Property
• Republic Act No. 3019 – Anti‐Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
• Supreme Court precedents in Cruz, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan and Republic v. Migrino
AFP Board Mandate Under EO No. 1
• EO No. 1 (1986) tasked PCGG to recover ill‐gotten wealth of Marcos, relatives, subordinates, associates
• PCGG created the AFP Anti‐Graft Board to investigate unexplained wealth and corrupt practices by AFP personnel
• 27 July 1987 Resolution: prima facie finding that Ramas and Dimaano possessed military equipment, cash (P2.87 million, US$50,000), real property and jewelry disproportionate to Ramas’s salary
Filing of Forfeiture Petition
• 1 Aug 1987 – PCGG files petition under RA 1379 for forfeiture of respondents’ assets
• Amended Complaint (by Solicitor General) names Republic as plaintiff; impleads Dimaano; alleges Ramas acquired unlawful wealth by misuse of office and association with Marcos
Sandiganbayan Proceedings and Dismissals
• Pretrial and trial set, then repeatedly deferred at PCGG’s request for additional evidence and amended pleadings
• PCGG presents only three witnesses; cannot complete evidence; seeks to amend complaint to shift focus to Dimaano alone
• Oct 1989–May 1990 – Sandiganbayan repeatedly grants final continuances, warns of “drastic action” on failure to proceed
• 18 Nov 1991 – Resolution dismisses Amended Complaint and orders return of confiscated items; remands records to Ombudsman; refers tax liability to BIR
• 25 Mar 1992 – Motion for reconsideration denied
Issues on Certiorari Review
- Whether PCGG has jurisdiction to investigate and file forfeiture petition against AFP personnel who are not shown to be “subordinates” of Marcos under EO No. 1 and its amendments
- Whether Sandiganbayan erred in dismissing the petition before PCGG completed presentation of evidence
- Whether the confiscated items not covered by the search warrant were legally seized and admissible in evidence
Jurisdiction of PCGG Under EO No. 1
• EO No. 1 grants PCGG jurisdiction over Marcos, immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close associates for ill‐gotten wealth accumulated during Marcos’s administration
• Supreme Court precedents in Cruz and Migrino interpret “subordinate” narrowly to require close association or acquiescence by Marcos in accumulation of wealth
• Ramas’s position alone as Commanding General is insufficient to show he was a “subordinate” of Marcos; no prima facie showing of close association
• PCGG resolution and Amended Complaint do not tie Ramas’s wealth to his relationship with Marcos
• For violations of RA 3019 and RA 1379 not falling under EO No. 1 categories, jurisdiction lies with the Ombudsman under RA 6770, and authority to file forfeiture petition rests with the Solicitor General
Dismissal Before Completion of Evidence
• PCGG caused repeated delays over four years by postponing hearings and filing late motions to amend complaint
• Sandiganbayan afforded PCGG multiple opportunities and final deadlines; PCGG still could not proceed or complete evidence
• Procedural delay and lack of jurisdiction alone sufficed to justify dismissal
Legality of Search and Seizure of Dimaano’s Property
• Warrant issued on 3 Mar 1986 authorized
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 271012)
Antecedent Facts and Investigative Findings
- Following EDSA, Executive Order No. 1 created the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) to recover all ill-gotten wealth of Ferdinand Marcos and associates.
- PCGG set up an AFP Anti-Graft Board to investigate unexplained wealth of AFP personnel.
- On 27 July 1987, the Board’s Resolution found:
• Ramas owned properties in Quezon City (estimated at ₱700,000) and Cebu City (3,327 sqm).
• Military‐grade items in Dimaano’s premises were invoiced to Capt. Efren Salido and unlikely her own.
• ₱2,870,000 and US$50,000 seized from Dimaano’s house on 3 March 1986.
• Affidavits established Dimaano as Ramas’s mistress with no visible income of her own.
• Ramas’s Statement of Assets omitted the cash and equipment, revealing unexplained wealth of ₱104,134.60.
• The Board concluded a prima facie case of ill-gotten wealth totaling ₱2,974,134 and US$50,000.
• Recommendation: prosecute Ramas under RA 3019 (Anti-Graft) and RA 1379 (Forfeiture of Unlawful Property).
Civil Case Proceedings Before the Sandiganbayan
- 1 August 1987: PCGG filed a petition for forfeiture under RA 1379 against Ramas.
- Solicitor General amended the complaint, naming the Republic (PCGG) as plaintiff, Ramas and impleading Dimaano as co-defendants:
• Alleged that Ramas’s accumulated assets were disproportionate to his salary and from misuse of office.
• Dimaano was alleged to have been supported by Ramas and possessed unlawful wealth. - Ramas and Dimaano filed separate answers, each denying ownership of the seized properties and cash.
- Pre-trial concluded in 1988; trial initially set for November 1988 but deferred for PCGG’s lack of preparation.
- 17 April 1989: PCGG presented only three witnesses and sought postponements and leave to amend complaint; Sandiganbayan refused delaying tactics.
- September 1989–May 1990: Multiple continuations granted, PCGG repeatedly admitted inability to present further evidence, sought to amend to conform complaint.
- 11 July 1990: PCGG filed a