(Case

 No.  40)  

REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 152154
November 18, 2003
Art. III Section 1

FACTS:
Imelda Marcos seeks the reconsideration of the decision in July 15, 2003 which ordered
the forfeiture of the swiss deposits in escrow at the Philippine National Bank estimated aggregate
amount of US$658,175,373.60 as of January 31, 2002. She contends that the court deprived her
of her constitutional right to due process since RA 1379 that was charged against her, being a
criminal case, requires that the prosecution has burden of proof that the respondent is guilty
beyond reasonable doubt and since the decision of the Supreme Court which was converted from
a special civil action to a regular appeal, it divested the respondent’s right to appeal the case on
merit and that the mere summary judgment is not enough to forfeit the property of the
respondent.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the summary judgment in forfeiture proceedings a violation of due process.

HELD:
1. No.
Due process has two aspects: procedural and substantive. In order for an act not to be
impugned that there was a violation in the due process, there must be compliance with both. In
the substantive aspects, there is no showing that RA 1379 was unfair, unreasonable or unjust. In
other words, respondent Marcoses are not being deprived of their property through forfeiture for
arbitrary reasons or on flimsy grounds. A careful study of the law also shows that the RA did not
violate the substantive rights of the Marcoses. These proceedings are civil in nature, contrary to
the claim of the Marcoses that it is penal in character.
The proceedings under RA shows that the property shall be forfeited if the respondent
cannot show upon satisfaction of the court where he lawfully acquired the property in question.
There must be a petition, answer and hearing in order for the procedural aspect to suffice.
Respondents also claim that summary judgment denies them their right to a hearing and
to present evidence purposely granted under Section 5 of RA 1379.
Respondents were repeatedly accorded full opportunity to present their case, their
defenses and their pleadings. Not only did they obstinately refuse to do so. Respondents time and
again tried to confuse the issues and the Court itself, and to delay the disposition of the case. A
careful analysis of Section 5 of RA 1379 readily discloses that the word hearing does not always
require the formal introduction of evidence in a trial, only that the parties are given the occasion
to participate and explain how they acquired the property in question. If they are unable to show
to the satisfaction of the court that they lawfully acquired the property in question, then the court
shall declare such property forfeited in favor of the State. There is no provision in the law that a
full blown trial ought to be conducted before the court declares the forfeiture of the subject
property. Thus, even if the forfeiture proceedings do not reach trial, the court is not precluded
from determining the nature of the acquisition of the property in question even in a summary
proceeding.

Prepared by: Owdylyn Lim Lee 1