Scribd
Upload
24 views2 pages

Republic of The Philippines v. Sandiganbayan J G.R. No. 104768

The case involves the confiscation of items from Elizabeth Dimaano's house linked to Major General Josephus Q. Ramas, who was accused of accumulating unexplained wealth. The Sandiganbayan dismissed the case, ruling that the PCGG lacked jurisdiction over Ramas and that the search and seizure of the items were illegal. Consequently, the court ordered the return of the confiscated items to Dimaano and limited the PCGG's authority to recovering wealth from the Marcos family and their close associates.

Uploaded by

Jeric Tucay
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
24 views2 pages

Republic of The Philippines v. Sandiganbayan J G.R. No. 104768

The case involves the confiscation of items from Elizabeth Dimaano's house linked to Major General Josephus Q. Ramas, who was accused of accumulating unexplained wealth. The Sandiganbayan dismissed the case, ruling that the PCGG lacked jurisdiction over Ramas and that the search and seizure of the items were illegal. Consequently, the court ordered the return of the confiscated items to Dimaano and limited the PCGG's authority to recovering wealth from the Marcos family and their close associates.

Uploaded by

Jeric Tucay
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CALICA , MERRY JOY L.

TUCAY, JERIC D.

Republic of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 104768

The case revolves around the confiscation of items and money from Elizabeth Dimaano's house and the
subsequent legal proceedings involving Major General Josephus Q. Ramas, former Commanding General
of the Philippine Army, and his alleged involvement in the accumulation of unexplained wealth. The main
points of the case are as follows:
1. Background of the Case:
o The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) was created by President
Corazon C. Aquino through Executive Order No. 1. The PCGG was tasked with
investigating and recovering the ill-gotten wealth of former President Ferdinand Marcos,
his family, and close associates.
o The Anti-Graft Board of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP Board) investigated
allegations of unexplained wealth against Ramas, leading to the confiscation of various
items, including money, communications equipment, jewelry, and land titles, from the
house of Elizabeth Dimaano, who was alleged to be his mistress and had no visible
source of income.
2. Confiscation and Legal Issues:
o A raid was conducted on March 3, 1986, at Dimaano's residence, where authorities seized
items including P2.87 million and $50,000 USD in cash, military equipment, and other
valuables.
o Dimaano, being Ramas' mistress, was said to have no independent means to acquire such
wealth, and the case suggested that Ramas used his position and influence to accumulate
wealth unlawfully.
o However, the issue arose whether the confiscation of these items was legal. The court
questioned the validity of the search and seizure since some of the seized items were not
specified in the search warrant, including the cash and valuables.
3. PCGG's Jurisdiction:
o The core of the legal argument was whether the PCGG had the authority to investigate
and prosecute Ramas. The PCGG was authorized to investigate those closely associated
with Marcos, but the court determined that Ramas did not fall under this category simply
by virtue of his military position.
o The court ruled that being a high-ranking military officer, even one directly reporting to
President Marcos, did not automatically make Ramas a "subordinate" as defined in
Executive Order No. 1 unless it was proven that he had a close personal or financial
association with Marcos.
4. Sandiganbayan’s Dismissal:
o The Sandiganbayan dismissed the case because it found that the PCGG had no
jurisdiction over Ramas, as there was no prima facie evidence showing a close
connection between Ramas and Marcos that would place him under the PCGG's
authority.
o The court also cited the illegal search and seizure of the items from Dimaano’s house as
another reason for dismissal. Since the items were seized without a proper warrant, they
were inadmissible as evidence in the case.
5. Petitioner's Arguments and the Court’s Ruling:
o The Republic of the Philippines (represented by the PCGG) argued that the
Sandiganbayan erred in its decision and that the items confiscated should have been
admitted as evidence.
o However, the court maintained that during the time of the confiscation, the Bill of Rights
under the 1973 Constitution had reverted to an embryonic stage, but the government was
still bound by international treaties such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The confiscation of property
was considered arbitrary and thus invalid.
6. Conclusion:
o The petition for forfeiture was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the seized items,
except for contraband, were ordered to be returned to Dimaano.
o The court emphasized that the PCGG’s authority was limited to recovering ill-gotten
wealth of the Marcos family and their close associates, and without proving such a
connection, the PCGG could not prosecute military officials like Ramas.
o The case was referred to the Ombudsman and the Bureau of Internal Revenue to
investigate potential tax liabilities for Dimaano, but the PCGG’s involvement was
effectively over.

You might also like