REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS.

SANDIGANBAYAN, MAJOR
GENERAL JOSEPHUS Q. RAMAS AND ELIZABETH DIMAANO, RESPONDENTS.
G.R. NO. 104768 JULY 21, 2003

FACTS:

Immediately upon her assumption to office following the successful EDSA Revolution, then

President Corazon C. Aquino issued Executive Order No. 1 ("EO No. 1") creating the

Presidential Commission on Good Government ("PCGG"). EO No. 1 primarily tasked the PCGG

to recover all ill-gotten wealth of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family,

relatives, subordinates and close associates. EO No. 1 vested the PCGG with the power " to

conduct investigation as may be necessary in order to accomplish and carry out the purposes of

this order" and the power " to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry

out the purpose of this order." Accordingly, the PCGG, through its then Chairman Jovito R.

Salonga, created an AFP Anti-Graft Board ("AFP Board") tasked to investigate reports of

unexplained wealth and corrupt practices by AFP personnel, whether in the active service or

retired. Based on its mandate, the AFP Board investigated various reports of alleged unexplained

wealth of respondent Major General Josephus Q. Ramas ("Ramas"). On 27 July 1987, the AFP

Board issued a Resolution on its findings and recommendation on the reported unexplained

wealth of Ramas.

ISSUES:

A. RESPONDENT COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT PETITIONER’S

EVIDENCE CANNOT MAKE A CASE FOR FORFEITURE AND THAT THERE WAS NO

SHOWING OF CONSPIRACY, COLLUSION OR RELATIONSHIP BY CONSANGUINITY

DIMAANO NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT SUCH CONCLUSIONS WERE

CLEARLY UNFOUNDED AND PREMATURE, HAVING BEEN RENDERED PRIOR TO

THE COMPLETION OF THE PRESENTATION OF THE EVIDENCE OF THE

PETITIONER.

B. RESPONDENT COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACTIONS

TAKEN BY THE PETITIONER, INCLUDING THE FILING OF THE ORIGINAL

COMPLAINT AND THE AMENDED COMPLAINT, SHOULD BE STRUCK OUT IN LINE

WITH THE RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CRUZ, JR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN,

194 SCRA 474 AND REPUBLIC v. MIGRINO, 189 SCRA 289, NOTWITHSTANDING THE

FACT THAT:

1. The cases of Cruz, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, supra, and Republic v. Migrino, supra, are clearly not

applicable to this case;

2. Any procedural defect in the institution of the complaint in Civil Case No. 0037 was cured

and/or waived by respondents with the filing of their respective answers with counterclaim; and

3. The separate motions to dismiss were evidently improper considering that they were filed after

commencement of the presentation of the evidence of the petitioner and even before the latter

was allowed to formally offer its evidence and rest its case;

C. RESPONDENT COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ARTICLES

AND THINGS SUCH AS SUMS OF MONEY, COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT,

JEWELRY AND LAND TITLES CONFISCATED FROM THE HOUSE OF RESPONDENT

DIMAANO WERE ILLEGALLY SEIZED AND THEREFORE EXCLUDED AS EVIDENCE.

We hold that PCGG has no such jurisdiction.

Petitioner, however, does not claim that the President assigned Ramas' case to the PCGG.

Therefore, Ramas' case should fall under the first category of AFP personnel before the PCGG

could exercise its jurisdiction over him. Petitioner argues that Ramas was undoubtedly a...

subordinate of former President Marcos because of his position as the Commanding General of

the Philippine Army. Petitioner claims that Ramas' position enabled him to receive orders

directly from his commander-in-chief, undeniably making him a subordinate of former President

Marcos. We hold that Ramas was not a "subordinate" of former President Marcos in the sense

contemplated under EO No. 1 and its amendments. Mere position held by a military officer does

not automatically make him a "subordinate" as this term is used in EO Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A

absent a showing that he enjoyed close association with former President Marcos."subordinate"

as used in EO Nos. 1 & 2 refers to one who enjoys a close association with former President

Marcos and/or his wife, similar to the immediate family member, relative, and close associate in

EO No. 1 and the close relative, business associate, dummy, agent, or nominee in EO No. 2.

Ramas' position alone as Commanding General of the Philippine Army with the rank of Major

General[19] does not suffice to make him a "subordinate" of former President Marco

PCGG has to provide a prima facie showing that Ramas was a close associate of former

President Marcos failed to do the resolution of the AFP Board and even the Amended Complaint

do not show that the properties Ramas allegedly owned were accumulated by him in his capacity

as a "subordinate" of his commander-in-chief. Petitioner merely enumerated the properties

Ramas allegedly owned and suggested that these properties were disproportionate to his salary
and other legitimate income without showing that Ramas amassed them because of his close

association with former President Marcos. Petitioner, in fact, admits that the AFP Board

resolution does not contain a finding that Ramas accumulated his wealth because of his close

association with former President Marcos, thus: While it is true that the resolution of the Anti-

Graft Board of the New Armed Forces of the Philippines did not categorically find a prima facie

evidence showing that respondent Ramas unlawfully accumulated wealth by virtue of his close

association or relation with... former President Marcos and/or his wife, it is submitted that such

omission was not fatal. The resolution of the Anti-Graft Board should be read in the context of

the law creating the same and the objective of the investigation which was, as stated in the

above, pursuant to Republic Act Nos. 3019 and 1379 in relation to Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14

and 14-a;[21] (Emphasis supplied) Such omission is fatal. Petitioner forgets that it is precisely a

prima facie showing that the ill-gotten wealth was accumulated by a "subordinate" of former

President Marcos that vests jurisdiction on PCGG. EO No. 1[22] clearly premises the creation...

of the PCGG on the urgent need to recover all ill-gotten wealth amassed by former President

Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close associates. Therefore, to say that

such omission was not fatal is clearly contrary to the intent behind the creation of the PCGG.

preliminary investigation of unexplained wealth amassed on or before 25 February 1986 falls

under the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, while the authority to file the corresponding forfeiture

petition rests with the Solicitor General.[27] The Ombudsman Act or Republic Act No. 6770

("RA No. 6770") vests in the Ombudsman the power to conduct preliminary investigation and to

file forfeiture proceedings involving unexplained wealth amassed after 25 February 1986.[28]

After the pronouncements of the Court in Cruz, the PCGG still pursued this case despite the

absence of a prima facie finding that Ramas was a "subordinate" of former President Marcos.
The petition for forfeiture filed with the Sandiganbayan should be... dismissed for lack of

authority by the PCGG to investigate respondents since there is no prima facie showing that EO

No. 1 and its amendments apply to respondents.

Petitioner has no jurisdiction over private respondents. Thus, there is no jurisdiction to waive in

the first place. The PCGG cannot exercise investigative or prosecutorial powers never granted to

it. PCGG's powers are specific and limited. Unless given additional assignment by... the

President, PCGG's sole task is only to recover the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses, their

relatives and cronies.[29] Without these elements, the PCGG cannot claim jurisdiction over a

case. Petitioner has only itself to blame for non-completion of the presentation of its evidence.

First, this case has been pending for four years before the Sandiganbayan dismissed it.

Petitioner... filed its Amended Complaint on 11 August 1987, and only began to present its

evidence on 17 April 1989. Petitioner had almost two years to prepare its evidence. However,

despite this sufficient time, petitioner still delayed the presentation of the rest of its evidence by

filing numerous motions for postponements and extensions.

Thus, we hold that the Sandiganbayan did not err in dismissing the case before completion of the

presentation of petitioner's evidence.

Petitioner claims that the Sandiganbayan erred in declaring the properties confiscated from

Dimaano's house as illegally seized and therefore inadmissible in evidence. This issue bears a

significant effect on petitioner's case since these properties comprise most of petitioner's...

evidence against private respondents. Petitioner will not have much evidence to support its case

against private respondents if these properties are inadmissible in evidence.

Dimaano's cousins witnessed the raid. The raiding team seized the items detailed... in the seizure

receipt together with other items not included in the search warrant. The raiding team seized

these items: one baby armalite rifle with two magazines; 40 rounds of 5.56 ammunition; one

pistol, caliber .45; communications equipment, cash consisting of P2,870,000 and US$50,000,

jewelry, and land titles. "on March 3, 1986 or five days after the successful EDSA revolution.

Petitioner is partly right in its arguments."done in defiance of the provisions of the 1973

Constitution."[41] The resulting government was indisputably a revolutionary government bound

by no constitution or legal limitations except treaty obligations that the revolutionary

government, as the de jure government in the Philippines, assumed under international... law.

We hold that the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution was not operative during the

interregnum. However, we rule that the protection accorded to individuals under the Covenant

and the Declaration remained in effect during the interregnum.

directives and orders of the revolutionary government were the supreme law because no

constitution limited the extent and scope of such directives and orders.

during the interregnum, a person could not invoke any exclusionary right under a Bill of Rights

because there was neither a constitution nor a Bill of Rights during the interregnum.

The Declaration, to which the Philippines is also a signatory, provides in its Article 17(2) that

"no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property." Although the signatories to the Declaration

did not intend it as a legally binding document, being only a declaration, the Court has

interpreted the Declaration as part of the generally accepted principles of international law and
binding on the State.[46] Thus, the revolutionary government was also obligated under

international law to observe the rights [47] of individuals under the Declaration.

The fact is the revolutionary government did not repudiate the Covenant or the

Declaration in the same way it repudiated the 1973 Constitution. As the de jure government, the

revolutionary government could not escape responsibility for the State's good faith compliance

with its treaty obligations under international law. directives and orders issued by government

officers were valid so long as these officers did not exceed the authority granted them by the

revolutionary government. The directives and orders should not have also violated the Covenant

or the Declaration. In this case, the revolutionary government presumptively sanctioned the

warrant since the revolutionary government did not repudiate it. The warrant, issued by a judge

upon proper application, specified the items to be searched and... seized. The warrant is thus

valid with respect to the items specifically described in the warrant. Constabulary raiding team

seized items not included in the warrant. I was informed that the reason why they also brought

the other items not included in the search warrant was because the money and other jewelries

were contained in attaché cases and cartons with... markings "Sony Trinitron", and I think three

(3) vaults or steel safes. Believing that the attaché cases and the steel safes were containing

firearms, they forced open these containers only to find out that they contained money.

It is obvious from the testimony of Captain Sebastian that the warrant did not include the monies,

communications equipment, jewelry and land titles that the raiding team confiscated. The search

warrant did not particularly describe these items and the raiding team confiscated... them on its

own authority. The raiding team had no legal basis to seize these items without showing that

these items could be the subject of warrantless search and seizure.[52] Clearly, the raiding team

exceeded its authority when it seized these items.

and they are not, they must be returned to the person from whom the raiding seized them.

do not declare that such person is the lawful owner of these items petition for certiorari is

DISMISSED. The questioned Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan dated 18 November 1991 and

25 March 1992 in Civil Case No. 0037, remanding the records of this case to the Ombudsman

for such appropriate action as the evidence may warrant, and referring this case to the

Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue for a determination of any tax liability of

respondent Elizabeth Dimaano, are AFFIRMED.

Ayreen Erika Hernandez