0 Higit Pa Susunod na Blog Bumuo ng Blog Mag-sign in

Nerdy Mode
class notes. Just so i won't have to sift through my old notes and inhale dust in case i need them. (note
that this may contain summaries of books and cases. I am not passing off the contents of the books as
mine, but the notes are indeed, most of the time mine. notes taken from professors and even
presentations prepared by professors are duly credited. some typos but hey, if you want the perfect
notes, then make your own)

Monday, August 10, 2009

Search
Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan Digest (460 SCRA 588) This Blog
Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan
Search
460 SCRA 588
June 22, 2005, TINGA

NATURE Blog
Petitioner filed this Petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 to annul and set aside public
respondent Sandiganbayans Resolution[1] dated 29 October 2004 and Writ of Preliminary Attachment[2] Archive
dated 2 November 2004, and to enjoin public respondents Sandiganbayan and Office of the Ombudsman
from further proceeding with any action relating to the enforcement of the assailed issuances. 2016 (4)

FACTS 2015 (1)

-Major General Carlos F. Garcia was the Deputy Chief of Staff for Comptrollership of the AFP. 2012 (2)
-On Sept27, 2004, Atty. Maria Olivia Roxas, Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer of the Field
2011 (9)
Investigation Office of the Office of the Ombudsman, after due investigation, filed a COMPLAINT vs.
Garcia for VIOLATION OF 2010 (61)
1. SECTION 8 (IN RE Section 11) of RA 6713(Code of Conduct of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and 2009 (50)
Employees)
December (7)
2. Art 183, RPC
3. Sec52(A)(1), (3) & (20) of the Civil Service Law November (17)
-based on this complaint, a case was filed vs. Petitioner October (5)
-Wife and 3 sons were impleaded for violation of RA 1379 insofar as they acted as conspirators, conduits,
September (11)
dummies and fronts of petitioner in receiving, accumulating, using and disposing of ill-gotten wealth
-Also, a PETITION W/ VERIFIED URGENT EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF August (10)
PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT was filed by Ombudsman before the SB vs. Garcia, his wife and 3 sons: PubOff Digests for
Ombudsman, after conducting inquiry (similar to PI) has determined a prima facie case exists vs. Maj. September 1
Gen Garcia since during his incumbency as a soldier and public officer he acquired huge amounts of Certain Issues:
money and properties manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer and his other Start with No
lawful income SB GRANTED PETITION, ISSUED WRIT OF PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT deficiency claim
in ...

-Garcia filed MTD then this PETITION (same day): Comm Arb:
a.LACK OF JURISDICTION over forfeiture proceedings (CIVIL ACTION) under RA 1379 should be w/ RTC August 28
as provided under SEC2(9) of the law August 25 PubOff
b. Sandiganbayans jurisdiction in Civil Actions pertains only to separate actions for recovery of Cases (digest)
unlawfully acquired property vs. Pres. Marcos etc. Banking Notes:
c. SB was intended principally as a criminal court August 22?
BASIS: Presidential issuances and laws
Comm Arb: Aug 14
d. Granting that SB has jurisdiction, petition for forfeiture is fatally defective for failing to comply with
jurisdictional requirements under RA 1379, SEC2: Garcia vs.
Sandiganbayan
i. inquiry similar to a PI Digest (460
ii. Certification to SOLGEN of prima facie case here: no certification SCRA 588)
iii. action filed by SOLGEN - here: by Ombudsman
Banking Notes for
August 8
COMMENT by SB:
Comm Arb: July
1.Republic vs. SB: there is no issue that jurisdiction over violations of [R.A.] Nos. 3019 and 1379 now rests
31, 2009 lecture
with the Sandiganbayan.
2. Under Consti and prevailing statutes, SB is vested w/ authority and jurisdiction over the petition for Comm Arb August
8
forfeiture under RA 1379 Lecture/discussi
3. Section4a(1), PD 1606, not Section 2(9), RA 1379 should be made the basis of SBs jurisdiction: on
a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code,
where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government,
whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:
(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade 27 Labels
and higher of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including:
. Banking Law (4)
(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher ranks;
Commercial Arbitration
. (10)
4. SBs jurisdiction based on PD 1606 encompasses all cases involving violations of RA 3019 IRRESPECTIVE
Corporation Law (6)
OF WON THESE CASES ARE CIVIL OR CRIMINAL IN NATURE
Criminal Law (2)
COMMENT BY OMBUDSMAN: digest (3)
1. Republic vs. SB election law (4)
2. Grant of jurisdiction over violations of RA 1379 did not change even under the amendments of RA7975
Evidence (7)
and RA 8294, though it came to be limited to cases involving high-ranking public officials
3. It has authority to investigate and initiate forfeiture proceedings vs. petitioner based on COnsti and RA ICT Lectures (4)
6770: The constitutional power of investigation of the Office of the Ombudsman is plenary and Intellectual Property
unqualified; its power to investigate any act of a public official or employee which appears to be illegal, Law (6)
unjust, improper or inefficient covers the unlawful acquisition of wealth by public officials as defined Islamic Law (3)
under R.A. No. 1379
Labor Arbitration (6)
4. Section 15, RA 6770 expressly empowers Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute such cases of
unlawful acquisition of wealth. Miscellaneous (1)
5. ON REQUIREMENTS under RA 1379: inquiry was conducted similar to PI + SOLGENs participation no OLA (1)
longer required since Ombudsman endowed w/ authority to investigate and prosecute philippines (1)
6. dismiss petition for forum shopping: MTD was already filed before SB
PIL (1)

REPLY by Garcia poe v. comelec (4)

1. SBs criminal jurisdiction is separate and distinct from its civil jurisdiction : SBs jurisdiction over political law (1)
forfeiture cases had been removed w/o subsequent amendments expressly restoring such civil PRIL Chapter
jurisdiction Summaries (17)
2. Petition for forfeiture is not an ancilliary action for the criminal action against him, so not under PRIL Lecture notes (16)
jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan
Professor Vicente
Amador (1)
ISSUES
Project Development
1. WON SB has jurisdiction over petitions for forfeiture under RA 1379
(1)
2. WON Ombudsman has authority to investigate, initiate and prosecute such petitions for forfeiture
3. WON petitioner is guilty of forum shopping public international
law (1)
Randomness (2)
HELD
Petition W/O MERIT, dismissed Remedial law review
(6)
1. SB HAS JURISDICTION SPECPRO (8)
Reasoning: SPIT (1)
*Republic vs. Sandiganbayan: Originally, SOLGEN was authorized to initiate forfeiture proceedings before
Taxation Law (2)
then CFI of the city or province where the public officer/employee resides or holds office [RA 1379, SEC2]
Upon the creation of the Sandiganbayan [PD 1486], original and exclusive jurisdiction over such travel (1)
violations was vested in SB.
PD 1606: repealed 1486 and modified jurisdiction of SB by removing its jurisdiction over civil actions
brought in connection w/ crimes w/n exclusive jurisdiction of SB, including:
> restitution or reparation for damages
>recovery of instruments and effects of the crime
>civil actions under Art32 and 34 of the Civil Code
>and forfeiture proceedings provided under RA 1379
BP 129: abolished concurrent jurisdiction of SB and regular courts, expanded EOJ of SB over offenses
About Me
enumerated in SEC4 of PD1606 to embrace all such offenses irrespective of imposable penalty.
PD1606 was later amended by PD 1869 and eventually by PD 1861 because of the proliferation of filing
cases w/ penalty not higher than PC or its equivalent and even such cases not serious in nature
jurisdiction over violations of RA 3019 and 1379 is lodged w/ SB
under RA 8249: SB vested w/ EOJ in all cases involving violations of :
>>RA 3019 Cha Mendoza
>>RA 1379 Now I'm a lawyer...oh
>>ChapII, Sec2, Title VII, Book II of the RPC wait, I'm a
Where 1 or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions, whether in a permanent, magician...noooo...I'm a
acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense (see above) ghost writer....uhm...I'm
sometimes an
ON CIVIL NATUR OF FORFEITURE ACTIONS accountant...a PR
-they are actions in rem, therefore, civil in nature BUT FORFEITURE OF AN ILLEGALLY ACQUIRED person...a
psychiatrist...a shoulder
PROPERTY PARTAKES THE NATURE OF A PENALTY [as discussed in Cabal vs. Kapunan]
to lean on... But you
don't need that. You're
SB VESTED W/ JURISDICTION OVER VIOLATIONS OF RA 1379 [An Act Declaring Forfeiture In Favor of probably reading my
the State Any Property Found to Have Been Unlawfully Acquired By Any Public Officer or Employee and blog because of digests
Providing For the Proceedings Therefor.]: the law provides a procedure for forfeiture in case a public and class notes. So
officer has acquired during his incumbency an amount of property manifestly out of proportion to his enjoy! Hope my digests
salary as such public officer or employee and to his lawful income and income from legitimately acquired and notes help.
property. No penalty for the public officer for unlawful acquisition but the law imposes forfeiture as a View my complete
penalty for unlawfully acquired properties profile

2. YES, as resolved in Republic vs. SB (it was the main issue there)
RA 1379, Sec2: SOLGEN authorized to initiate forfeiture proceedings
PD 1486: vested SB w/ jurisdiction over RA 1379 forfeiture proceedings
Facebook
Sec12: Chief Special Prosecutor has authority to file and prosecute forfeiture cases, not SOLGEN, to SB,
not CFI (BUT THIS IS JUST AN IMPLIED REPEAL as may be derived from the repealing clause of PD 1486)
Badge
PD 1487: created Ombudsman
Cha Mendoza
PD 1606 repealed expressly PD 1486
PD 1607 provided that Office of the Chief Special Prosecutor has exclusive authority to conduct
preliminary investigation of all cases cognizable by the SB, file info therefore, and direct and control
prosecution of said cases
also removed authority to file actions for forfeiture under RA 1379
the repeal of P.D. No. 1486 by P.D. No. 1606 necessarily revived the authority of the Solicitor General to
file a petition for forfeiture under R.A. No. 1379, but not the jurisdiction of the Courts of First Instance
Create Your Badge
over the case nor the authority of the Provincial or City Fiscals (now Prosecutors) to conduct the
preliminary investigation therefore, since said powers at that time remained in the Sandiganbayan and
the Chief Special Prosecutor.
PD 1630: expanded the Tanodbayans authority: given exclusive authority to conduct PI of all cases Tota
cognizable by SB, to file info therefore and to direct and control the prosecution of said cases
**1987 CONSTI enacted l
RA 6770 + ART XI, SEC 13 of 1987 CONSTI: POWERS OF OMBUDSMAN:
1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public
officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or
Page
inefficient. It has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of
this primary jurisdiction, may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of Government, the
views
investigation of such cases;
10
(11) Investigate and initiate the proper action for the recovery of ill-gotten and/or unexplained wealth 25
amassed after 25 February 1986 and the prosecution of the parties involved therein.
It is the Ombudsman who should file petition for forfeiture under RA 1379
43
BUT powers to investigate and initiate proper action for recovery of ill-gotten and/or unexplained wealth
is restricted only to cases for the recovery of ill-gotten and/or unexplained wealth amassed AFTER FEB
1986

3. ON FORUM SHOPPING: GUILTY!

Garcia failed to inform the court that he had filed a MTD in relation to the petition for forfeiture before
the SB.
A scrutiny of the Motion to Dismiss reveals that petitioner raised substantially the same issues and prayed
for the same reliefs therein as it has in the instant petition. In fact, the Arguments and Discussion[89] in
the Petition of petitioners thesis that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over separate civil actions for
forfeiture of unlawfully acquired properties appears to be wholly lifted from the Motion to Dismiss. The
only difference between the two is that in the Petition, petitioner raises the ground of failure of the
petition for forfeiture to comply with the procedural requirements of R.A. No. 1379, and petitioner prays
for the annulment of the Sandiganbayans Resolution dated 29 October 2004 and Writ of Preliminary
Attachment dated 2 November 2004. Nevertheless, these differences are only superficial. Both Petition
and Motion to Dismiss have the same intent of dismissing the case for forfeiture filed against petitioner,
his wife and their sons. It is undeniable that petitioner had failed to fulfill his undertaking. This is
incontestably forum-shopping which is reason enough to dismiss the petition outright, without prejudice
to the taking of appropriate action against the counsel and party concerned.

Posted by Cha Mendoza

What you think? funny (0) interesting (0) cool (0)

Recommend this on Google

No comments:

Post a Comment
 Enter your comment...

Comment as: Google Account

Publish Preview

Links to this post

Create a Link

Newer Post Home Older Post

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts
Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan Digest (460 SCRA 588)
Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan 460 SCRA 588 June 22, 2005, TINGA NATURE Petitioner filed this Petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rul...

Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC - Arguments

CITIZENSHIP RESPONSE Material misrepresentation when POE said she is a natural-born Filipino citizen POE is a foun...

San Luis vs. San Luis

Short Summary: Former Laguna governor had 1st spouse who predeceased him, then married again to an American citizen who divorced him,
then...

Choice of Law in Wills, Succession and Administration of Estates

Will (A783, NCC): -an act Whereby a person Is permitted, With the formalities prescribed by law, To determine to a certain extent the dis...

Banking Notes for August 8

Qualifications in Euro-Dollar Loan Agreement Closing Opinion (for it to be enforceable): 1. exceptions to payment of scheduled insta...

CommArb: Digest for September 4 Meeting

Gonzales v. climax mining 512 scra 138 (CHECK BECAUSE THE DIGEST CIRCULATED STATES ANOTHER CASE) Facts: co-production, joint venture
a...

November 24 REMLAW REV Notes

Parties Formal parties Pro-forma parties Necessary parties - Relucio v. Lopez: note however, that the party here is neither a necessary no...

Notes on Nationality
NATIONALITY A. IMPORTANCE OF PERSONAL LAW -an individual's nationality or domicile serves as a permanent connection between the indi...

Certain Issues: Start with No deficiency claim in a pledge

Pactum commisorium is not allowed under RP Laws. If you have a multiple security agreement (chattel mortgage, REM, pledge, assignment) for
t...

PubOff Digests for September 1

Digest for September 1, 2009 CSC vs. Lucas January 21, 1999, Pardo Nature: Petition for review on certiorari Facts -Raquel Linatok filed w/...

charisse.mae.villamejor.mendoza. Watermark theme. Powered by Blogger.