GR 165835; (June, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 165835; June 22, 2005
MAJOR GENERAL CARLOS F. GARCIA, Petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and the OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Major General Carlos F. Garcia, then Deputy Chief of Staff for Comptrollership of the AFP, sought to annul the Sandiganbayan’s Resolution and Writ of Preliminary Attachment issued against him and his family in a forfeiture case under Republic Act No. 1379. The Office of the Ombudsman, after an inquiry, filed a petition alleging that Garcia acquired properties manifestly disproportionate to his lawful income. The Sandiganbayan granted the Republic’s application for a writ of preliminary attachment.
Garcia filed a Motion to Dismiss and the instant Petition for Certiorari, arguing that the Sandiganbayan lacks jurisdiction over the civil forfeiture case. He contended that jurisdiction under R.A. No. 1379 resides with the Regional Trial Courts, and that the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction over separate civil actions is limited to cases against the late President Marcos, his family, and cronies as per Presidential Decree No. 1606 and related executive orders. He also claimed the petition was defective for non-compliance with R.A. No. 1379’s requirements, such as a certification from the prosecution arm to the Solicitor General.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the petition for forfeiture of unlawfully acquired property under R.A. No. 1379 filed against Major General Carlos F. Garcia.
RULING
Yes, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. The Court clarified that a forfeiture proceeding under R.A. No. 1379 is an action in rem, quasi-criminal in nature, and is inherently civil. The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is determined by the rank and salary grade of the accused public officer. Since Garcia, with the rank of Major General, falls under the Sandiganbayan’s exclusive original jurisdiction as defined by P.D. No. 1606, as amended, the court properly took cognizance of the case. The amendments introduced by Executive Orders Nos. 14 and 14-A, which expanded the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction to include civil forfeiture cases against Marcos and his associates, did not divest it of its pre-existing jurisdiction over other public officers like Garcia. The law creating the Sandiganbayan confers upon it jurisdiction over all cases of civil forfeiture where the public officer concerned is within its rank-based jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Office of the Ombudsman, vested with investigative and prosecutorial powers under the Constitution and R.A. No. 6770, is authorized to file the forfeiture petition directly with the Sandiganbayan. The procedural requirements of R.A. No. 1379 were satisfied through the Ombudsman’s investigation and certification of a prima facie case. The petition was not fatally defective.
