Case Summary (G.R. No. 90529)
Applicable Law
The case hinges on Republic Act No. 1379, which concerns the forfeiture of property found to be unlawfully acquired by public officers and employees. The legal challenge primarily questions whether the Office of the Ombudsman or the Office of the Solicitor General possesses the authority to initiate these forfeiture proceedings.
Case Background
The Republic filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court to annul and set aside a resolution from the Sandiganbayan which had dismissed its forfeiture petition against Asistio. The Sandiganbayan ruled that only the Ombudsman had the authority to file such a petition, based on the conclusion that violations of Republic Act No. 1379 are within its exclusive jurisdiction.
Allegations Against Asistio
The complaint against Asistio alleged that he accumulated significant deposits into his bank account that greatly exceeded his legitimate income as reported in his sworn statements of assets and liabilities. The Ombudsman found reasonable grounds to believe that these funds were associated with corrupt practices and recommended action to the Solicitor General.
Sandiganbayan's Dismissal Rationale
The Sandiganbayan dismissed the petition for forfeiture, citing provisions derived from Presidential Decrees which assign exclusive authority over the prosecution of such cases to the Ombudsman. Here, the court noted that the original jurisdiction over such cases had been transferred from lower courts to the Sandiganbayan, along with the authority to file the necessary prosecutorial actions.
Solicitor General's Argument
The Solicitor General, asserting his authority to proceed under Republic Act No. 1379, contended that the law vests this authority in his office. He argued that prior legislation delineates the responsibilities of the Ombudsman and the Solicitor General without nullifying the latter’s right to file a forfeiture petition.
Supreme Court Decision
The Supreme Court found in favor of the Solicitor General, determining that he retains the authority to file a petition for forfeiture even after the establishment of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under recent laws. In essence, the Court stated that the Solicitor General’s authority was restored following the repeal of earlier statutes that had transferred such powers, and the petition for forfeiture filed by the Solicitor General was thus deemed valid.
Authority of the Ombudsman
While acknowledging the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction over cases of unlawfully acquired wealth, the Court concluded that this jurisdiction only extends to actions regarding wealth amassed after February 25, 1986. Since Asistio's alleged ill-gotten gains were acquired between 1981 and 1983, the Ombudsman lacked the authority to initiate the forfeiture petition against him.
Restored Authority of the Solicitor General
Consequently, the ruling emphasized that before the
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 90529)
Case Background
- The case arises from a petition filed by the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Solicitor General, seeking to annul the resolution of the Sandiganbayan dated October 10, 1989.
- The primary issue is determining whether the Office of the Ombudsman or the Office of the Solicitor General has the authority to file a petition for forfeiture of unlawfully acquired wealth under Republic Act No. 1379.
Allegations Against Macario Asistio, Jr.
- Respondent Macario Asistio, Jr., the Mayor of Kalookan City, was charged with violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019) by residents Arnel Blancaflor and Rodolfo Santos.
- The complaint included allegations that Asistio unlawfully acquired substantial wealth during his incumbency, totaling P17,264,722.90, which significantly exceeded his declared income.
Preliminary Investigation Findings
- The Ombudsman conducted a preliminary investigation and established that Asistio's total income from 1981 to 1984 was only P489,452.70, which was disproportionate to his bank deposits of P14,184,337.16.
- The Ombudsman concluded that there was reasonable ground to believe that violations of R.A. 1379 and/or R.A. 3019 occurred, and deemed Asistio "probably guilty."
Indorsement and Petition for Forfeiture
- On March 31, 1989, the Ombudsman indorsed the case to the Solicitor Genera