G.R. No. 19328 & G.R. No. 19329 , December 22, 1989
Alejandro Katigbak and Mercedes K. Katigbak, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. The Solicitor General, et al., defendants-appellees. / Republic of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Alejandro Katigbak and Mercedes K. Katigbak, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

These consolidated cases originated from two actions. In the first, spouses Alejandro and Mercedes Katigbak sought to enjoin the Solicitor General from filing a forfeiture complaint under Republic Act No. 1379 and to declare the law unconstitutional, particularly its application to properties acquired before its enactment. They also sought damages against investigating officers. The second action was the actual forfeiture petition filed by the Republic against the Katigbaks, alleging Alejandro, a former government examiner, unlawfully acquired properties while in public service, with some titles recorded in his wife and son’s names.
The trial court jointly tried the cases. It dismissed the Katigbaks’ injunction suit. In the forfeiture case, it found properties acquired in 1953-1955 to be unlawfully obtained and imposed a lien in favor of the government, initially for P100,000, later reduced to P80,000. The Katigbaks appealed, and the Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court, as it squarely raised the constitutionality of R.A. No. 1379 .

ISSUE

Whether Republic Act No. 1379 , as applied to properties acquired before its enactment, constitutes an unconstitutional ex post facto law.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the forfeiture aspect of the trial court’s decision. The Court held that the forfeiture of property under R.A. No. 1379 is penal in nature, as established in Cabal v. Kapunan, Jr. (6 SCRA 1059). The law’s objective is not merely to recover property but to impose a penalty for illicit enrichment. An ex post facto law includes one that makes criminal an act innocent when done or imposes a penalty for a prior lawful act. Applying the forfeiture penalty to property acquisitions made before R.A. No. 1379 ’s passage on June 18, 1955, violates the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. Therefore, the trial court’s order imposing a lien on properties acquired in 1953-1955 was constitutionally impermissible and set aside.
Regarding the claim for damages against the investigating prosecutor, the Court affirmed the trial court’s finding of no proof of malice or bad faith, noting Katigbak was competently counseled during the preliminary investigation. The factual conclusion of no arbitrariness is binding absent recognized exceptions. The judgment was thus reversed only on the forfeiture order and affirmed in all other respects.