GARCIA v.

SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 165835, June 22, 2005
Tinga, J.:

FACTS:

The Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) a complaint against petitioner Major General Carlos
F. Garcia, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Comptrollership of the Armed Forces of the Philippines,
for violations of Sec.8, in relation to Sec.11 of Republic Act (RA) 6713, of Art. 183 of the Revised
Penal Code, and R.A. 1379. Also, his wife and their three sons were included in the said
complaint as they acted as conspirators or dummies in accumulating and using of his ill-gotten
wealth. The Republic of the Philippines (RP) then, through the Ombudsman, filed before the
Sandiganbayan (SB), a petition seeking the forfeiture of unlawfully acquired properties under
Sec.2 of RA 1379. The SB then granted the relief prayed for and which was subsequently
questioned by the petitioner by filing a Motion to Dismiss Case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
of the said court over the forfeiture proceedings. On even date, Garcia also filed the petition.

Petitioner argues that the jurisdiction resides in the Regional Trial Courts (RTC) as provided under
Sec. 2 of R.A. 1379 and that the jurisdiction of the SB in civil actions pertains only to separate
actions for recovery of ill-gotten wealth of President Marcos as can be gleaned from Sec. 4 of
Presidential Decree (PD) 1606 and Executive Orders (EO) 14 and 14-A. Under PD 1606, the SB
was intended principally as a criminal court and under the said EOs the court has jurisdiction only
over civil actions filed against President Marcos.

Petitioner further contends that the jurisdictional requirements under Sec. 2 of RA 1379 were not
complied namely:
a. An inquiry similar to a preliminary investigation conducted by the prosecution arm of the
government;
b. a certification to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) that there is reasonable ground
to believe that there has been violation of the said law and that respondent is guilty thereof;
and
c. an action filed by the OSG on behalf of the RP.

Respondents replied, noting that the jurisdiction issued raised by petitioner have been already
settled in Republic vs. Sandiganbayan. Respondents argue that under the Constitution and
prevailing statutes, the SB is vested with authority and jurisdiction over the petition for forfeiture
pointing to Sec. 4.a (1) (d) of P.D. 1606 which provides “The SB shall exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction in all cases involving: a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019 ... Republic Act No.
1379…Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher ranks”

The Ombudsman asserts that all the requirements of R.A. No. 1379 have been strictly complied
with. An inquiry similar to a preliminary investigation was conducted by a Prosecution Officer of
the Ombudsman and the participation of the OSG is actually no longer required since the
Ombudsman is endowed with the authority to investigate and prosecute the case.

In addition, the Ombudsman alleges that the present Petition should be dismissed for blatant
forum-shopping. he filed the instant Petition raising exactly the same issue, even though
the Motion to Dismiss in Civil Case No. 0193 is still pending resolution.

Petitioner however did not raise any argument to refute the charge of forum-shopping.
ISSUES:

1. Whether or not SB has jurisdiction over petitions for forfeiture under R.A. No. 1379
2. Whether or not the Ombudsman has the authority to investigate, initiate and prosecute
such petitions for forfeiture
3. Whether or not petitioner is guilty of forum-shopping.

HELD:

1. YES. The seminal decision of Republic v. Sandiganbayan squarely rules on the issues
raised by petitioner concerning the jurisdiction of the SB and the authority of the Office of
the Ombudsman. This was the main issue resolved in Republic v. Sandiganbayan.
(Stare decisis et non quieta movere ; Follow past precedents and do not disturb
what has been settled.)

2. YES. Under Sec. 2 of RA 1379, it was the OSG who was authorized to initiate forfeiture
proceedings before the RTC but was impliedly repealed by PD 1486 was later issued
vesting the SB with jurisdiction over RA 1379 forfeiture proceedings and gave the Chief
Special Prosecutor the authority to file and prosecute forfeiture cases.
(leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant ; A later statute which is repugnant
to an earlier statute is deemed to have abrogated the earlier one on the same subject
matter)
PD 1487 was passed creating the Tanodbayan (Ombudsman) who initially had no
authority to prosecute cases falling within the jurisdiction of the SB. PD 1606 was enacted
expressly repealing PD 1486. PD1607 amended the powers of the Ombudsman to
investigate administrative complaints and created the Office of the Chief Special
Prosecutor. PD 1607 provided said Office of the Chief Special Prosecutor with exclusive
authority to conduct preliminary investigation of all cases cognizable by the SB and also
removed from the Chief Special Prosecutor the authority to file actions for forfeiture under
RA 1379
(The rule is that when a law which expressly repeals a prior law is itself repealed,
the law first repealed shall not be thereby revived unless expressly so provided.
From this it may fairly be inferred that the old rule continues in force where a law
which repeals a prior law, not expressly but by implication, is itself repealed; and
that in such cases the repeal of the repealing law revives the prior law, unless the
language of the repealing statute provides otherwise.)
Hence, the repeal of PD1486 by PD 1606 necessarily revived the authority of the OSG to
file a petition for forfeiture under RA 1379, but not the jurisdiction of the RTC over the case
nor the authority of the Provincial or City Fiscals to conduct the preliminary investigation
therefore. The Tanodbayan’s authority was further expanded by PD1630. Among other
things, the Tanodbayan was given the exclusive authority to conduct preliminary
investigation of all cases cognizable by the SB. The power to conduct the necessary
investigation and to file and prosecute the corresponding criminal and administrative
cases before the SB was also transferred from the Chief Special Prosecutor to the
Tanodbayan. Thereafter, PD 1606 was amended by PDs1860 and 1861 which granted
the Tanodbayan the same authority.

3. YES. The petitioner failed to inform the Court that he had filed a Motion to Dismiss in
relation to the petition for forfeiture before the SB.