G.R. No. 152154 November 18, 2003
Republic of the Philippines, petitioner, vs. Honorable Sandiganbayan (Special First Division), Ferdinand E. Marcos (Represented by his Estate/Heirs: Imelda R. Marcos, Maria Imelda [Imee] Marcos-Manotoc, Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. and Irene Marcos-Araneta), and Imelda Romualdez Marcos, respondents.

FACTS

The Republic filed a petition for forfeiture under Republic Act No. 1379 against the Marcoses, targeting Swiss bank deposits. The Sandiganbayan initially granted the forfeiture but later reversed itself. The Republic then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which, in a July 15, 2003 Decision, ordered the forfeiture of the Swiss deposits in escrow. The Marcos heirs filed motions for reconsideration, arguing that the forfeiture proceedings were criminal/penal in nature, requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt and a full trial. They contended that the Supreme Court’s decision, rendered via summary judgment on certiorari, deprived them of due process and the right to appeal on the merits. They also claimed the ruling would prejudice pending criminal cases against Imelda Marcos.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Supreme Court’s July 15, 2003 Decision, which forfeited the assets via summary judgment in a certiorari proceeding, violated the respondents’ right to due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the motions for reconsideration with finality. The Court held that a forfeiture proceeding under R.A. 1379 is a civil action in rem, not a criminal action. It requires only a preponderance of evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The right to a full-blown trial is not absolute and can be waived. The records showed that the Marcoses, through their own deliberate acts and strategies—including repeatedly seeking postponements, failing to present evidence despite opportunities, and submitting the case for decision based solely on the pleadings—had effectively waived their right to a trial. They could not benefit from their own dilatory tactics.
The Court further ruled that its decision would not prejudice the separate criminal cases against Imelda Marcos, as those are actions in personam requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt, a distinct and higher standard. The factual findings in the civil forfeiture case, based on preponderance of evidence, do not bind the criminal courts. Finally, the Court rejected the relevance of a U.S. court’s “global freeze order” on the assets, upholding the principle of territoriality and its own jurisdiction over the forfeited funds. The denial of the motions for reconsideration stands.