GR 104768; (July, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 104768 ; July 21, 2003
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, MAJOR GENERAL JOSEPHUS Q. RAMAS and ELIZABETH DIMAANO, Respondents.
FACTS
The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), pursuant to its mandate under Executive Order No. 1, investigated the alleged ill-gotten wealth of respondent Major General Josephus Q. Ramas. An AFP Anti-Graft Board found a prima facie case, noting Ramas owned substantial real estate and that military equipment and large sums of cash (₱2.87 million and $50,000) were confiscated from the residence of his alleged mistress, co-respondent Elizabeth Dimaano, who had no visible income. The Republic, through the PCGG, filed a petition for forfeiture under Republic Act No. 1379 against Ramas and later amended the complaint to implead Dimaano.
The Sandiganbayan dismissed the Amended Complaint. It ruled that the PCGG’s authority, derived from E.O. No. 1, was limited to recovering ill-gotten wealth from the Marcoses, their immediate family, relatives, subordinates, and close associates. The court found that the complaint failed to sufficiently allege that Ramas was a “subordinate or close associate” of former President Ferdinand Marcos, which was a jurisdictional prerequisite for the PCGG to prosecute the case.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly dismissed the Amended Complaint for failure to sufficiently allege that respondent Ramas was a “subordinate or close associate” of former President Marcos, thereby falling within the PCGG’s jurisdiction under E.O. No. 1.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the Sandiganbayan’s dismissal and remanded the case. The Court held that the Sandiganbayan committed a reversible error in applying a strict and literal interpretation of the phrase “subordinate and close associate” from E.O. No. 1. The legal logic is that the PCGG’s mandate is not rigidly confined to a pre-defined list of individuals. The PCGG is empowered to investigate and prosecute cases where assets are alleged to be ill-gotten, provided there is a prima facie showing of a nexus to the Marcos administration’s “pattern of corrupt practices.”
The Amended Complaint explicitly alleged that Ramas acquired his wealth by “taking undue advantage of his public office and/or using his power, authority and influence as such officer… and as a subordinate and close associate of the deposed President Ferdinand Marcos.” At the stage of a motion to dismiss, the court must assume the truth of the material allegations in the complaint. The allegation of being a “subordinate and close associate” is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the PCGG for preliminary investigation and to require the respondents to answer. The ultimate validity of this allegation is a matter of evidence to be threshed out during a full trial on the merits, not a ground for dismissal at the pleading stage.