GR L 77645; (October, 1987) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-77645 October 26, 1987
RICARDO SILVERIO, petitioner, vs. PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Ricardo Silverio, a businessman, was among the defendants in a graft complaint filed by the Office of the Solicitor General before the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG). The PCGG subsequently issued writs of sequestration against Silverio’s properties. Silverio filed a “Motion to Quash Complaint and to Lift Sequestrations,” arguing the complaint failed to allege any connection or common criminal design linking him to other defendants and that no probable cause justified the sequestration. The PCGG later issued a notice stating it had found prima facie evidence that defendants acquired assets manifestly disproportionate to their income, requiring them to show cause why judicial proceedings should not be instituted. Silverio requested a copy of this prima facie evidence, which he claims was never furnished.
ISSUE
Whether the PCGG committed grave abuse of discretion in failing to act on Silverio’s motion and in pursuing the case despite the alleged absence of a prima facie case to justify the sequestration orders.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The legal logic centers on the nature and scope of the PCGG’s sequestration powers under its enabling executive orders and the 1987 Constitution . The Court clarified that sequestration is a provisional, conservatory remedy akin to preliminary attachment, designed to prevent the dissipation of assets allegedly ill-gotten. It may be issued ex parte due to the urgent need to preserve property. The constitutional qualification under Section 26 of the Transitory Provisions requires a showing of a prima facie case for such orders.
The Court examined the record and found the PCGG had established the requisite prima facie case against Silverio. It referenced documents, including a business report from Silverio addressed to “Sir,” indicating his business interests received considerable privileges from former President Marcos due to their close association, in potential violation of law. This evidence, while still subject to full judicial determination, constituted sufficient prima facie basis for the PCGG to initiate legal action and maintain the sequestration. Consequently, the PCGG did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The petition was also rendered moot as the corresponding suit had already been filed with the Sandiganbayan.