G.R. No. 90529. August 16, 1991
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION) AND MACARIO ASISTIO, JR., RESPONDENTS.
REGALADO, J.:
With the renascence of democratic
space and the culmination in court of a preponderant number of ill-gotten
wealth cases, this Court is tasked again with another novel issue involving the
determination of whether it is the Office of the Ombudsman or the Office of the
Solicitor General which has the authority to file a petition for forfeiture of
unlawfully acquired wealth as provided for in Republic Act No. 1379.[1]
The Republic, through the
Solicitor General, filed the instant petition for review on certiorari
seeking to annul and set aside the resolution[2] of respondent Sandiganbayan,
promulgated on October 10, 1989, dismissing the petition for forfeiture
filed by the Republic against respondent
Macario Asistio, Jr., for
the reason that “it is the Ombudsman – not the Office of the Solicitor
General – that has the authority
to file the petition.”
The facts, as summarized in the memorandum of the Republic, are as follows:
“1. In a Joint Letter-Complaint to the Ombudsman
dated January 8, 1989 (Annex ‘A’, Petition), Messrs. Arnel
Blancaflor and Rodolfo Santos, residents of Kalookan City, charged respondent Macario
Asistio, Jr., who is the incumbent Mayor of Kalookan City, with having violated the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019), specifically Section 8 thereof.
“2. In said Joint Sworn Letter-Complaint, they
alleged that during his
incumbency as Kalookan City Mayor in 1981, 1982 and
1983, respondent Asistio acquired wealth in the
amounts of P2,142,637.50, P11,463,734.40 and P3,658,351.00, respectively, or a
total of P17,264,722.90, which he deposited in his personal
account, CA-4670-00136-3, in the Republic Planters Bank, Sangandaan
Branch, Kalookan City.
“3. In support of their allegations, they attached
the original copies of the bank deposits and receipts which indicated the
various sums deposited within the three-year period and which had been machine
validated from January 5, 1981 thru December 20, 1983 (Annexes ‘A-1’ to
‘A-370’, Petition).
“4. However, in his Sworn Statements of Assets and
Liabilities for the period ending December 31, 1982 (Annex ‘B’, Petition) and
December 31, 1984 (Annex ‘C’, Petition), said respondent had a total income of only P234,128.68
and P255,324.02, respectively; and as against his total assets (real and personal properties) of P2,859,327.94 as
of December 31, 1982, he had loans payable in the amount of P2,425,575.60, and
against total assets of P5,143,260.98 as of December 31, 1984, he had loans
payable in the amount of P2,660,094.74.
“5. The Preliminary Investigation was conducted
by Special Prosecution Officer Margarito P. Gervacio, Jr., before whom authenticated xerox copies of the original ledger cards of CA-4670-00136-3
in the name of respondent Macario Asistio,
Jr. were produced and presented by the officer-in-charge of the Republic Planters
Bank, Sangandaan Branch, Kalookan City.
“6. Finding that the total combined family income
of respondent Asistio for the years 1981, 1982, 1983
and 1984, amounting only to P489,452.70, is manifestly out of proportion to the
totality of his bank deposits in the total amount of P14,184,337.16 for the
same four-year period, the Ombudsman, therefore, finds that a violation of
Republic Act 1379 and/or Section 8 of Republic Act 3019 has been committed and
that Asistio is ‘probably guilty thereof’ (Annex ‘D’,
Petition).
“7. Thus, on March 31, 1989, the Ombudsman, the Honorable Conrado M. Vasquez, indorsed the above case to the
Solicitor General for appropriate action, based on the provision of Section 2,
Republic Act 1379.
Said indorsement reads, in part:
‘Pursuant to the provision of Sec. 2, Republic Act 1379, the
appropriate preliminary investigation had been conducted in the premises by
this Office and there is reasonable ground to believe that the provision of
Sec. 8, Republic Act 3019 has been violated probably by respondent Macario Asistio, Jr. A Resolution on the matter was issued by this
Office, copies of which form part of the record.'”[3]
On April 28, 1989,
the Solicitor General, pursuant to the aforesaid recommendation of the
Ombudsman, filed a Petition for Forfeiture[4]
before the Sandiganbayan.
A Motion to Dismiss[5]
was filed by respondent Asistio, through counsel, on
the ground that:
1. The Sandiganbayan
has no jurisdiction over the case;
2. Sections 2, 6, 8 and 9 of R.A. 1379, if not
the entire statute, are invalid for being unconstitutional; and
3. The petition states no cause of action.
In an Opposition to Respondent’s Motion
to Dismiss,[6]
the Solicitor General averred that:
1. The Sandiganbayan
has jurisdiction over the case;
2. Respondent’s attack on the constitutionality
of R.A. 1379 is bereft of any basis;
3. Ironically, while respondent attacks the
constitutionality of R.A. 1379, he relies on the very same law to support his
argument that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction
over this forfeiture case grounded on Sec. 2 of R.A. 1379; respondent is
therefore estopped from assailing the validity of
R.A. 1379;
4. The petition has more than sufficient cause
of action; and
5. The motion to dismiss is dilatory and
frivolous, hence outrightly dismissible.
In dismissing the petition for forfeiture and in ruling that it
is the Ombudsman who has the authority to file the same before the court, the Sandiganbayan held that:
“Other statutory provisions pertinent to the incident at bar
read:
‘The Office of the Tanodbayan shall have
the exclusive authority to conduct preliminary
investigation of all cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan;
to file information therefor and to direct and
control the prosecution of the said cases.’ (Sec. 17, PD 1630.)
‘The provisions of the Decree notwithstanding, the Office of the Tanodbayan shall continue to have the exclusive
authority to conduct preliminary investigation, file the necessary information,
and direct and control the prosecution of all cases enumerated in Section 4 of
Presidential Decree No. 1606, whether such cases be within the exclusive
original/appellate jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
or the appropriate courts in accordance with the provisions of Presidential
Decree No. 1630.’ (Sec. 3, PD 1861, amending PD 1606.)
“Since violations of Republic Act 1379 are cognizable
exclusively by the Sandiganbayan pursuant to Section
4 of PD 1606, abrogating thereby the jurisdiction over forfeiture cases
theretofore vested in the Regional Trial Court of the city or province where the
public officer or employee complained of resides or holds office under Section
2 of Republic Act 1379, the other provision of said section 2 insofar as it
lodged in the City or Provincial Fiscal the power to conduct the previous
inquiry/preliminary investigation must be deemed similarly modified by PD 1630,
Section 17, and PD 1861, Section 3 abovequoted, in
the sense that such authority of the City or Provincial Fiscal has been
transferred to the Office of the Tanodbayan (now
Ombudsman). Considering, further, that PDs 1630 and 1861, Sections 17 and 3, respectively, also
provide that the Office of the Tanodbayan (Ombudsman)
shall also have the exclusive authority to file the
necessary information and direct and control the
prosecution of all cases falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, it is the Ombudsman – not the Office of the
Solicitor General – that has the authority to file the petition in this case.
x x
x
“UPON THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the instant petition is
hereby DISMISSED but without prejudice to the refiling
of another petition by the Ombudsman.” (Underscoring in the original
text.)[7]
In effect, the dismissal of the petition for forfeiture by the Sandiganbayan is premised on the supposition that since
violations of Republic Act No. 1379 now fall within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan, and considering further that
the exclusive authority to file the necessary informations
and to direct and control the prosecution of all cases falling under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is vested
in the Office of the Tanodbayan (now Ombudsman), it
follows that it is the Ombudsman, and not the Solicitor General, who has the
authority to file the petition for forfeiture.
It is the submission of the Solicitor General that his authority
to file the petition for forfeiture under Republic Act No. 1379 should be
retained, notwithstanding the amendments introduced by Presidential Decrees
Nos. 1630 and 1861 vesting in the Tanodbayan (now
Ombudsman) the exclusive authority to conduct the preliminary investigation of
all cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan
(specifically those enumerated in Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1606, as
last amended by Presidential Decree No. 1861), to file the informations
therefor and to direct and control the prosecution of
said cases.
Several reasons are advanced by the Solicitor General for his
aforesaid postulation, viz.:
1. The exclusive authority vested in the Tanodbayan by Section 17 of Presidential Decree No. 1630
and Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1861 is confined only to the filing of
the information and directing and controlling the prosecution of the cases
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, but does not include the authority to file a
petition for forfeiture. An information,
as defined under Section 4, Rule 110, of the Rules of Court, is different from
a petition, in that an information necessarily refers to a criminal proceeding
while a petition does not.
2. It is the intention of the legislature to
delineate forfeiture proceedings under Republic Act No. 1379 from the rest of
the violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as may be implied from a reading of
Section 9 of Republic Act No. 3019 (penalties for violations of Sections 3, 4,
5, and 6 thereof), which does not include Section 8 (forfeiture judgments) of
the same law within the punishments usually associated with criminal
proceedings, such as imprisonment and/or perpetual disqualification from public
office.
3. The provision of Republic Act No. 1379
authorizing the Solicitor General to file the petition for forfeiture, being a
special and specific provision, should prevail over Presidential Decrees Nos.
1630 and 1861 which contain general provisions involving violations not only of
Republic Act No. 1379 but also of Republic Act No. 3019.
We
find for the petitioner.
Before the creation of the Sandiganbayan,
it was the Solicitor General who was authorized to initiate forfeiture
proceedings before the then court of first instance of the city or province
where the public officer or employee resides or holds office, pursuant to
Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1379[8]
which reads:
“Sec. 2. Filing of
petition. – Whenever any public
officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency an amount of property
which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or
employee and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately
acquired property, said property shall be presumed prima facie to
have been unlawfully acquired. The
Solicitor General, upon complaint by any taxpayer to the city or provincial
fiscal who shall conduct a previous inquiry similar to preliminary
investigations in criminal cases and shall certify to the Solicitor General
that there is reasonable ground to believe that there has been committed a
violation of this Act and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, shall
file, in the name and on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, in the
Court of First Instance of the city or province where said public officer or
employee resides or holds office, a petition for a writ commanding said officer
or employee to show cause why the property aforesaid, or any part thereof,
should not be declared property of the State:
x x x.”
Thereafter, Presidential Decree No. 1486 was promulgated on June 11, 1978 providing for the
creation of the Sandiganbayan and vesting it, under
Section 4 thereof, with original and exclusive jurisdiction to try and decide,
among others:
“(a) Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as
amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and
Republic Act No. 1379;
(b) Crimes committed by public officers or
employees, including those employed in government-owned or controlled
corporations, embraced in Title VII of the Revised Penal Code;
(c) Other crimes or offenses committed by public
officers or employees including those employed in government-owned or
controlled corporations in relation to their office; Provided, that, in case
private individuals are accused as principals, accomplices or accessories in
the commission of the crimes hereinabove mentioned, they shall be tried jointly
with the public officers or employees concerned.
x x x
(d) Civil suits brought in connection with the aforementioned
crimes for restitution or reparation of damages, recovery of the instruments
and effects of the crimes, or forfeiture proceedings provided for under
Republic Act No. 1379;
(e) Civil actions brought under Articles 32 and 34
of the Civil Code.”
x x x
Subsequently, Presidential Decree No. 1606 was issued on December
10, 1978 expressly repealing Presidential Decree No. 1486 and revising in the
process the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan by
removing therefrom the civil cases stated in Section
4(d) and (e) of Presidential Decree No. 1486 which included forfeiture
proceedings provided for under Republic Act No. 1379.
Section 20 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 expanded the exclusive original jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan over the offenses enumerated in
Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1606 to embrace all such offenses
irrespective of the imposable penalty, but Presidential Decree No. 1606 was
subsequently amended, first by Presidential Decree No. 1860 and eventually by
Presidential Decree No. 1861, establishing the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan:
“SEC. 4. Jurisdiction. – The
Sandiganbayan shall exercise:
“(a) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases
involving:
(1)
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 of the Revised Penal Code;
(2)
Other offenses or felonies committed by public
officers and employees in relation to their office, including those employed in
government-owned or controlled corporations, whether simple or complexed with other crimes, where the penalty prescribed
by law is higher than prision correcional
or imprisonment for six (6)
years, or a fine of P6,000.00: PROVIDED,
HOWEVER, that offenses or felonies mentioned in this paragraph where the
penalty prescribed by law does not exceed prision correcional or imprisonment for six (6) years or a fine of P6,000.00 shall be tried by
the proper Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial
Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court.
“(b) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction:
(1)
On appeal, from the final judgments, resolutions
or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in cases originally decided by them in
their respective territorial jurisdiction.
(2)
By petition for review, from the final
judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts, in the exercise
of their appellate jurisdiction over cases originally decided by the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts,
in their respective jurisdiction.”
On the foregoing considerations, there is no issue that
jurisdiction over violations of Republic Acts Nos. 3019 and 1379 now rests with
the Sandiganbayan.
Concomitant with this transfer of jurisdiction, however, is the question
of whether such transfer necessarily involves a transfer of the authority to
file a petition for forfeiture from the Solicitor General to the
Ombudsman. The Sandiganbayan
holds in the affirmative; the Solicitor General opines otherwise.
The resolution of the main substantive issue posed in the present
petition renders imperative a review of the powers of the present Special Prosecutor
(formerly called the Tanodbayan) and of the Ombudsman
(who is now the Tanodbayan).
Presidential Decree No. 1487, which was enacted on June 11, 1978 at the same time that
Presidential Decree No. 1486 was passed, is the primary law creating the Office
of the Ombudsman, then known as the Tanodbayan. The powers of the then Tanodbayan
were as follows:
“SEC. 10. Powers. – The Tanodbayan
shall have the following powers:
(a) He may investigate, on complaint, any
administrative act of any administrative agency including any government-owned
or controlled corporation;
x x
x
SEC. 17. Prosecution of
public personnel. – If the Tanodbayan has reason to believe that any public official,
employee or other person has acted in a manner resulting in a failure of
justice, he shall file and prosecute the corresponding criminal, civil, or
administrative case before the Sandiganbayan or the
proper court or body.”
It is important to note
that when the Tanodbayan was created, it initially
had no authority to prosecute cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as provided for under Section 4 of
Presidential Decree No. 1486 hereinbefore mentioned. It was the Chief Special Prosecutor who was
vested with such authority pursuant to Section 12 of said decree, thus:
“SEC. 12. Office of
the Chief Special Prosecutor. – The
provisions of any law or rule to the contrary notwithstanding, the direction
and control of the prosecution of cases mentioned in Section 4 thereof, shall
be exercised by a Chief Special Prosecutor x x x.
“The Chief Special Prosecutor x x x shall have exclusive authority to conduct preliminary
investigations of all complaints filed with the Sandiganbayan,
to file informations and conduct the prosecution of
all cases x x x.”
A perusal of Sections
4(d) and 12 of Presidential Decree No. 1486, in conjunction with Section 2 of
Republic Act No. 1379, readily reveals that Presidential Decree No. 1486 had
impliedly repealed Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1379 by transferring
both the jurisdiction of the former courts of first instance over and the
authority of the Solicitor General to file a petition for forfeiture under
Republic Act No. 1379 to the Sandiganbayan and the
then Chief Special Prosecutor, respectively.
Then, Presidential Decree No. 1607 was enacted on December 10, 1978, amending the
power of the former Tanodbayan to investigate
administrative complaints and providing for the creation of the Office of the
Chief Special Prosecutor whose powers were substantially retained by the later
law, in this wise:
“SEC. 10. Powers. – The Tanodbayan
shall have the following powers:
(a) He may investigate, on complaint by any person
or on his own motion or initiative, any, administrative act whether amounting
to any criminal offense or not of any administrative agency including any
government-owned or controlled corporation;”
x x x
“SEC. 17. Office
of the Chief Special Prosecutor. ?
x x
x
The Chief Special Prosecutor, x x x shall have the exclusive authority to conduct preliminary
investigation of all cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan;
to file informations therefor
and to direct and control the prosecution of said cases therein; x x x.”
x x
x
“SEC. 19. Prosecution
of Public Personnel or Other Person.
– If the Tanodbayan has reason to believe that
any public official, employee, or other person has acted in a manner warranting
criminal or disciplinary action or proceedings, he shall cause him to be
investigated by the Office of the Chief Special Prosecutor who shall file and
prosecute the corresponding criminal or administrative case before the Sandiganbayan or the proper court or before the proper
administrative agency. x x x.”
The scope of the then Tanodbayan’s
authority was broadened on July 18, 1979 by a subsequent law, Presidential
Decree No. 1630, to include, aside from the power to investigate any
administrative act whether amounting to any criminal offense or not of any
administrative agency, the following powers:
to file the necessary information or complaint with the Sandiganbayan or any proper court or administrative agency
and prosecute the same if, after preliminary investigation, he finds a prima
facie case; and to file and prosecute civil and administrative cases
involving graft and corrupt practices and such other offenses committed by
public officers and employees, including those in government-owned or
controlled corporations, in relation to their office.[9]
The exclusive authority to conduct preliminary investigation of all cases
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, to file informations therefor and to
direct and control the prosecution of said cases was also specifically restored
by said decree to the Tanodbayan.[10]
In addition, the power to conduct the necessary investigation and to file and
prosecute the corresponding criminal and administrative cases before the Sandiganbayan or the proper court or before the proper
administrative agency against any public personnel who has acted in a manner
warranting criminal or disciplinary action or proceedings was likewise
transferred from the Chief Special Prosecutor to the Tanodbayan.[11]
Thereafter, when Presidential Decree No. 1606 was amended by
Presidential Decrees Nos. 1860 and 1861 on January 14, 1983 and March 23, 1983, respectively, both amendatory decrees
contained a virtually identical
Section 3 granting him the same authority, to wit:
“SEC. 3. The provisions
of this decree nothwithstanding, the Office of the Tanodbayan shall continue to have the exclusive authority
to conduct preliminary investigation, file the necessary information, and
direct and control the prosecution of all cases enumerated in Section 4 of
Presidential Decree No. 1606, whether such cases be within the exclusive
original/appellate jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
or the appropriate courts in accordance with the provisions of Presidential
Decree No. 1630.”
With the ratification of the present Constitution, the existing Tanodbayan became known as the Office of the Special
Prosecutor which continued to exercise its powers except those conferred on the
Office of the Ombudsman to be known as the Tanodbayan
created under the said Constitution.[12]
The Office of the Ombudsman and the Office of the Special Prosecutor were
officially and respectively created under Republic Act No. 6770, otherwise
known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989, and Executive Order No. 244.
At present, the powers of the Ombudsman, as defined by Republic
Act No. 6770 corollary to Section 13, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution,
include, inter alia, the
authority to: (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 inefficient.
It has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of this primary
jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of
Government, the investigation of such cases;[13]
and (2) investigate and initiate the proper action for the recovery of
ill-gotten and/or unexplained wealth amassed after February 25, 1986 and the
prosecution of the parties involved there.[14]
It follows that these powers vested in the Ombudsman by the
Constitution and the law have been removed from the erstwhile Tanodbayan (now called the Special Prosecutor) and may no
longer be exercised by the latter. The
powers of the previous Tanodbayan is now limited,
under the supervision and control and upon the authority of the Ombudsman, to
the following: (1) to conduct
preliminary investigation and prosecute criminal cases within the jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan; (2) to enter into plea
bargaining agreements; and (3) to perform such other duties assigned to it by
the Ombudsman.[15]
In Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan, et al.,[16]
the powers of the former Tanodbayan were explained as
follows:
“Under the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman (as distinguished from
the incumbent Tanodbayan) is charged with the duty
to:
‘Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or
omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or
omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient.’ (Sec. 13,
par. 1)
“The Constitution likewise provides that:
‘The existing Tanodbayan shall hereafter
be known as the Office of the
Special Prosecutor. It shall continue to
function and exercise its powers as now or hereafter may be provided by law,
except those conferred on the Office of the Ombudsman created under this
Constitution.’ (Art. XI, Section 7)
“Now then, inasmuch as the aforementioned duty is given to the
Ombudsman, the incumbent Tanodbayan (called Special
Prosecutor under the 1987 Constitution and who is supposed to retain powers and
duties NOT GIVEN to the Ombudsman) is clearly without authority to conduct
preliminary investigations and to direct the filing of criminal cases with the Sandiganbayan, except upon orders of the Ombudsman. This right to do so was lost effective February 2, 1987. From that time, he has been divested of such
authority.
“Under the present Constitution, the Special Prosecutor (Raul
Gonzalez) is a mere subordinate of the Tanodbayan
(Ombudsman) and can investigate and prosecute cases only upon the latter’s
authority or orders. The Special
Prosecutor cannot initiate the prosecution of cases but can only conduct the
same if instructed to do so by the Ombudsman.
Even his original power to issue subpoena, which he still claims under
Section 10(d) of PD 1630, is now deemed transferred to the Ombudsman, who may,
however, retain it in the Special Prosecutor in connection with the cases he is
ordered to investigate.”
In the light of the foregoing pronouncements, there is no doubt
that the power of the present Special Prosecutor to conduct preliminary
investigation and to prosecute is subject to the following limitations: (a) it extends only to criminal cases within
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan; and (b) the
same may be exercised only by authority of the Ombudsman.
The rule is settled that forfeiture proceedings are actions in
rem[17]
and, therefore, civil in nature.
Parenthetically, considering the limited authority of the present
Special Prosecutor, he is not allowed to file and prosecute forfeiture cases
provided for under Republic Act No. 1379 even if the same falls within the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. On the premise that the incumbent Special
Prosecutor cannot file the petition, is the Ombudsman empowered to initiate and
prosecute the same?
A perusal of the law originally creating the Office of the
Ombudsman then (to be known as the Tanodbayan), and
the amendatory laws issued subsequent thereto will show that, at its inception,
the Office of the Ombudsman was already vested with the power to investigate
and prosecute civil and criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan
and even the regular courts.
In resume, Presidential Decree No. 1487 provided:
“SEC. 17. Prosecution
of public personnel, ? If the Tanodbayan
has reason to believe that any public official, employee, or other person has
acted in a manner resulting in a failure of justice, he shall file and
prosecute the corresponding criminal, civil, or administrative case before the Sandiganbayan or the proper court or body.”
and Presidential Decree No. 1630, on its
part, had this more detailed provision:
“SEC. 10. Powers. – The Tanodbayan
shall have the following powers:
x x
x
(e) If after preliminary investigation he finds
a prima facie case, he may file the necessary information or complaint with the
Sandiganbayan or any proper court or administrative
agency and prosecute the same;
(f) He may file and prosecute civil and administrative
cases involving graft and corrupt practices and such other offenses committed
by public officers and employees, including those in government-owned or
controlled corporations, in relation to their office.”
Presidential Decree No. 1630 was the existing law governing the
then Tanodbayan when Republic Act No. 6770 was
enacted providing for the functional and structural organization of the present
Office of the Ombudsman. This later law
retained in the Ombudsman the power of the former Tanodbayan to
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 inefficient. In addition, the Ombudsman is now vested with
primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. It would appear, therefore, that, as declared
by respondent Sandiganbayan, it is the Ombudsman who
should file the petition for forfeiture involved in this case.
Nonetheless, while we do not discount the authority of the
Ombudsman, we believe and so hold that the exercise of his correlative powers
to both investigate and initiate the proper action for the recovery of
ill-gotten and/or unexplained wealth is restricted only to cases for the
recovery of ill-gotten and/or unexplained wealth which were amassed after
February 25, 1986.[18]
Prior to aid date, the Ombudsman is without authority to initiate such forfeiture proceedings.
We, however, uphold his authority to investigate cases
for the forfeiture or recovery of such ill-gotten and/or unexplained wealth
amassed even before the aforementioned date, pursuant to his general
investigatory power under Section 15(1) of Republic Act No. 6770.
In the case at bar, the alleged unexplained wealth of respondent Macario Asistio, Jr. was supposed
to have been acquired from 1981 to 1983.
Verily, the Ombudsman, like the Special Prosecutor, is without authority
to initiate and file the petition for forfeiture against respondent Asistio.
It is our considered opinion, therefore, that in cases of unlawfully acquired wealth
amassed before February 25, 1986,
as is the situation obtaining in the case at bar, it is the Solicitor General
who should file the petition for forfeiture.
The reason is manifestly supplied by an analysis of the interplay of
antecedent legislation.
It will be recalled that when Presidential Decree No. 1486 was
issued on June 11, 1978, it
vested in the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction over
forfeiture proceedings provided for under Republic Act No. 1379. Section 12 of the same decree gave the Chief
Special Prosecutor the authority to prosecute forfeiture cases. This should be taken as merely an implied
repeal by Presidential Decree No. 1486 of the jurisdiction of the former courts
of first instance and the authority of the Solicitor General to file a petition
for forfeiture under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1379 by transferring said jurisdiction and authority to the Sandiganbayan and the Chief Special Prosecutor,
respectively.
However, on December
10, 1978, Presidential Decree No. 1606 was enacted expressly
repealing Presidential Decree No. 1486.
Issued on the same date was Presidential Decree No. 1607 which declared
the official creation of the Office of the Chief Special Prosecutor, with
Section 17 thereof providing for its exclusive authority to conduct preliminary
investigation of all cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan,
file informations therefor,
and direct and control the prosecution of said cases therein. Still and all, it now bears stressing that,
under the state of the law at that juncture, the authority of the Chief Special
Prosecutor no longer included the right to file actions for forfeiture under
Republic Act No. 1379, nor was such authority vested in any other office or
agency.
It is a respected rule of statutory construction that “where
a law which repeals a prior law, not expressly but by implication, is itself
repealed, x x x the repeal of
the repealing law revives the prior law, unless the language of the repealing
statute provides otherwise.”[19]
Hence, the repeal of Presidential Decree No. 1486 necessarily revived the
authority of the Solicitor General to file a petition for forfeiture under
Section 2 of Republic Act No.
1379, but not the jurisdiction of the quondam courts of first instance over the
case nor the authority of the provincial or city fiscals to conduct the
preliminary investigation therefor, since said powers
at that time remained in the Sandiganbayan and the
Chief Special Prosecutor. That such was
the intendment of the law can be irresistibly deduced from a reading of Section
4 of Presidential Decree No. 1606 retaining in the Sandiganbayan
jurisdiction over violations of Republic Act No. 1379, and of Section 17 of
Presidential Decree No. 1607 which vested in the Chief Special Prosecutor the
right to conduct a preliminary investigation and to file only informations for cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.
We agree with the Solicitor General that the authority thereafter
restored to the then Tanodbayan to file informations for cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan does not include the filing of a petition for
forfeiture. As earlier mentioned, an
information is an accusation in writing charging a person with an offense and
requires a criminal proceeding; a petition for forfeiture involves a civil
action in rem. The
Solicitor General was, therefore, acting within the scope of his authority when
he filed the petition for forfeiture before the Sandiganbayan. Besides, such authority of the Solicitor
General is not an entirely new concept if we
are to consider that under Executive Order No. 14 the Solicitor General
is empowered to assist in the filing and prosecution of cases for a violation
thereof, including forfeiture proceedings under Republic Act No. 1379 in connection with Executive Orders
Nos. 1 and 2.
WHEREFORE, the resolution of respondent Sandiganbayan promulgated on October 10, 1989 is hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE, and
the petition for forfeiture filed by one Solicitor General is hereby ordered
REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
Fernan, C.J., Narvasa,
Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco,
Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, and Davide, Jr.,
JJ., concur.
[1]
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 Procedure Therefor.
[2]
Penned by Associate Justice Conrado M. Molina, with
Associate Justices Luciano A. Joson
and Nathanael M. Grospe,
concurring; Annex H, Petition; Rollo, 158.
[3]
Rollo, 231-233.
[4]
Annex E, Petition; Rollo, 129.
[5]
Annex A, id.; ibid., 193.
[6]
Annex G, id.; ibid., 145.
[7]
Rollo, 162-164.
[8]
Approved on June 18, 1955.
[9]
Section 10(e) and (f).
[10]
Section 17.
[11]
Section 18.
[12]
Section 7, Article XI, 1987 Constitution.
[13]
Section 15(1), Republic Act No. 6770.
[14]
Section 15(11), id.
[15]
Section 11(4), id.
[16]
160 SCRA 843 (1988).
[17]
Pascual vs. Commissioner of Customs, 4 SCRA
1020 (1962).
[18]
Section 15(11), Republic Act No. 6770.
[19]
U.S. vs.
Soliman, 36 Phil. 5 (1917).