Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
G.R. No.
189434, April 25, 2012
FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR., petitioner VS. REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, respondent
[G.R. NO. 189505]
IMELDA ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS, petitioner, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondent
FACTS: Two consolidated Petitions filed under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure pray for the reversal of Decision of the Sandiganbayan in Civil Case No. 0141. The anti-graft court granted the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by respondent Republic of the Philippines (Republic) and declared all assets and properties of Arelma, S.A., an entity created by the late Ferdinand E. Marcos, forfeited in favor of the government.
The Republic, through the Presidential Commission on Good Government
(PCGG), filed a Petition for Forfeiture before the Sandiganbayan. Respondent Republic, through the PCGG and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), sought the declaration of Swiss bank accounts totaling USD 356 million (now USD 658 million), and two treasury notes worth USD 25 million and USD 5 million, as ill-gotten wealth and the forfeiture of the assets of dummy corporations and entities established by nominees of Marcos and his wife, Petitioner Imelda Romualdez-Marcos, as well as real and personal properties manifestly out of proportion to the spouses’ lawful income.
Several Compromise Agreements were signed by Marcos children and PCGG
Chairperson Magtanggol Gunigundo before pre-trial for a global settlement of the Marcos assets respondent Republic filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and/or judgment on the pleadings (the 1996 Motion) pertaining to the forfeiture of the USD 356 million but was denied. Another Motion for Summary Judgment was filed which was initially granted, declaring that the Swiss deposits held in escrow at the PNB were ill-gotten wealth, and, thus, forfeited in favor of the State.
Republic filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment to declare “the funds, properties, shares in and interests of ARELMA as ill-gotten assets and forfeited in favor of the Republic of the Philippines pursuant to R.A. 1379 which was also granted.
ISSUE:
Whether the forfeiture proceeding, Civil Case No. 0141 with the Sandiganbayan is criminal in nature, such that summary judgment is not allowed
RULING:
NO. Proceedings for forfeitures are generally considered to be civil and in the nature of proceedings in rem. The statute providing that no judgment or other proceedings in civil cases shall be arrested or reversed for any defect or want of form is applicable to them. In some aspects, however, suits for penalties and forfeitures are of quasi-criminal nature and within the reason of criminal proceedings for all the purposes of * * * that portion of the Fifth Amendment which declares that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. The proceeding is one against the owner, as well as against the goods; for it is his breach of the laws which has to be proved to establish the forfeiture and his property is sought to be forfeited
As forfeiture suits under R.A. 1379 are civil in nature, it follows that Rule 35 of the Rules of Court on Summary Judgment may be applied to the present case. This is consistent with our ruling in the Swiss Deposits Decision upholding the summary judgment rendered by the Sandiganbayan over the Swiss deposits, which are subject of the same Petition for Forfeiture as the Arelma assets.
