GR No L-18428 August 30, 1962

Almeda Jr. vs Perez

Contention of the State:

Petitioner Mariano Almeda Jr. was an Assistant NBI Director charged for violation of RA 1379 or the Anti-
Graft Law for having acquired amounts which are manifestly out of proportion to his salary during his
incumbency. The trial court then now issued an order of forfeiture against the petitioners which was
later amended at the motion of the Sol-Gen by adding other counts and items and increased the total
forfeiture against the petitioners.

Defense of the Accused(petitioners):

The petitioners objected on the amended forfeiture against them on grounds that the forfeiture
proceedings under RA 1379 is penal in nature, the RTC denied them the benefit of preliminary
investigation. They also contended that the law provides a prohibition that no similar charges shall be
filed within one year after the date of general elections is violated.

Ruling:

Petition is denied. First, the forfeiture proceedings under RA 1379 are civil in nature as to forfeit the
illegally acquired properties in favor of the State. It is not criminal and does not require preliminary
investigations. The amendment of the forfeiture is also made in a civil action. Second, the amendments
relate back to the filing of the original petition so the prohibition of filing after a year after elections
does not apply.

GR No L-19052 December 29, 1962

Cabal vs Kapunan

Contention of the State:

Petitioner Manuel Cabal, then Chief of Staff of the AFP, was charged for graft and corrupt practices and
for giving false statements regarding his assets and liabilities. The president ordered the creation of a
Committee to investigate the matter which was however to be attended by the petitioner despite
requests to take the witness stand by invoking his right against self-incrimination. The Committee then
cited the petitioner in contempt under Sec 590 of the Revised Administrative Code for such unruly acts.

Defense of the Accused(petitioner):

The accused contended that the charge against him be invalidated for it, being criminal in nature did not
underwent preliminary investigation. The Committee cannot also compel him to take the witness stand
and be sworn to as it will be violative to his Constitutional right against self-incrimination.

Ruling:

The petition is granted. The purpose of the charge is for forfeiture proceedings to forfeit the illegally
acquired property in favor of the State. Citing American jurisprudence, the Court conceded that
forfeiture proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature in general but it may also be criminal or civil
depending on the inclusion of punishment(penal/fines). However, the Court adopted the ruling that
whenever the proceeding is not "purely remedial", or intended "as a redress for a private grievance", but
primarily to punish "a violation of duty or a public wrong and to deter others from offending in likewise
manner, the right against self-incrimination applies. Whether if the forfeiture proceedings may be
considered civil in form or by reason of commission of an offense (except if the penalty recoverable is
purely civil or remedial in nature), the right still accrues to the accused. The Almeda ruling only referred
to the procedural aspects of forfeiture proceedings but no bearing on the substantial rights of the
accused.

GR No 74225 April 17, 1989

Republic vs CA(IAC)

Contention of the State:

Private respondent Simplicio Berdon, an Assistant Staff Civil Engineer of the Bureau of Public Highways-
Region 7 was charged for violation of RA 1379 for unexplained wealth disproportionate to his income. It
ordered the forfeiture P124 495.82 as the total amount of the unexplained wealth. The evidences
produced by the Republic includes the different transactions involving certain parcels of land which the
private respondents acquired allegedly to be illicit.

Defense of the Accused:

The RTC and IAC both dismissed the charges basing on the evidences adduced by the private
respondents sufficiently and satisfactorily explaining that the acquisition of the subject parcels of land
were acquired by legal means. The private respondents presented documents of loans which added to
their income used in acquiring subject properties.

Ruling:

The Court upheld the IAC ruling and held that the private respondents have no unexplained wealth. It is
clear that RA 1379 creates a presumption against the public officer or employee involved in unexplained
wealth that the property was unlawfully acquired. However, this presumption is juris tantum. It may be
rebutted by the public officer or employee by showing to the satisfaction of the court that his
acquisition of the property was lawful. In here, the private respondents satisfactorily proved that their
properties were financed by their lawful employment combined with their loans and donations
recieved(from the Congressman who sponsored their wedding).