Republic of the Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan, and Ramas. G.R. No. 104768. 407 SCRA 10.

July 21, 2003

Facts:
 President Corazon C. Aquino Issued EO 1 creating the Presidential Commission of Good Government
(PCGG). The purpose of the EO was to recover all ill-gotten wealth of Former Pres. Marcos and his
immediate family, relatives, SUBORDINATES and close associates.
The PCGG was vested the powers to
1. Conduct investigation and carry out the purpose of the EO
2. To promulgate rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out such purpose

 The PCGG, through its Chairman Jovito R. Salonga, created the AFP Anti-Graft Board (AFP Board) tasked
to investigate the unexplained wealth and corrupt practices by AFP personnel

 The AFP Board investigated respondent Major Gen Josephus Q. Ramas(Commanding Gen of the PA until
1986) They obtained evidence showing that respondent is the owner of a
a. House and Lot located at St. La Vista, Quezon City, estimated to be P 700,000
b. House and Lot located in Cebu City.

 Affidavits of from various Military Units disclosed that on Feb 25, 1986,
a. Respondent had a Mistress, Elizabeth Dimaano and that
b. A person went to her residence with 4 attache cases filled with money and owned by the respondent

 A PC raiding team was sent to Elizabeth’s premises on Mar 3, 1986

They were able to confiscate
a. Military equipment/items and communications equipment
- Those should not have been in her possession. She only came to acquire it because it was given to
her by the Respondent.
b. Money in the amount of P2,870,000 and $50,000
- The record showed that She was only a clerk-typist for the Philippine army from Jan 1978 to Feb
1979 and had no visible means of income to acquire such amount

 Respondent submitted his SALN to the Boards Consultant. The money was not declared on his SALN and it
would not have been discovered had it not been for the affidavits of members of the Military. Apart from the
P 2,870,000 and $50,000, it was also found that the respondent had an unexplained wealth of P 104,134.60

 The Board recommended that he be prosecuted and tried for violation of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act and RA 1379 (The Act for the Forfeiture of Unlawfully Acquired Property)

 August 1, 1987, the PCGG filed a petition for forfeiture under RA 1379 against Ramas

 Before Ramas could answer the petition, then Solicitor General Francisco Chavez filed an Amended
Complaint naming the Rep of the Ph, represented by PCGG, as Plaintiff and Ramas as the Defendant with
Elizabeth Dimaano as co-defendant.
The amended complaint further alleged that Respondent acquired funds/properties by taking undue
advantage of his public office and his close association with Pres Marcos

 Ramas Filed an Answer.

a. He contends that his property at La Vista valued at P700,000 was not out of proportion to his salary and
other legitimate income
b. He denies ownership of any mansion in Cebu City and the Cash and the other items confiscated from
Dimaano
  Dimaano filed her own Answer. She claimed ownership of the monies, communications equipment, jewelry
and land titles taken from her house

 After termination of the pre-trial, the court set the case for trial on the merits on 9-11 November 1988. It was
reset to April 17 and 18 1989 upon petitioner’s request for lack of preparation and the absence of witnesses
and vital documents to support its case.

 On Apr 13, 1989, petitioner filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint, in order to include the
delinquent properties acquired by Dimaano alone to be subject to forfeiture.

 After presenting only 3 witnesses, petitioner asked for a postponement of the trial. On 28 1989, during the
continuation of the trial, petitioner reiterated its motion to amend the complaint to. On Mar 23, 1990,
petitioner again admitted its inability to present further evidence and Sandiganbayan gave petitioner one
more chance and reset the trial to May 18, 1990. But on May 18, 1990 petition again expressed its inability
to proceed to trial because it had no further evidence to present. Again, in the interest of justice,
Sandiganbayan granted petitioner 60 days to within which to file an appropriate pleading.

 Private respondents then filed their motions to dismiss based on Republic v. Migrino. Where the court held
that the PCGG does not have jurisdiction to prosecute respondent because he was not a “Subordinate and
close associate” as defined in the EO.

 Nov 18, 1991, Sandiganbayan DISMISSED the case.

Grounds:
1. The actions taken by PCGG not in accordance with the rulings of the SC in Cruz, Jr. v Sandiganbayan
and Republic v. Migrino which involve the same issues
2. No previous inquiry similar to preliminary investigations in criminal cases was conducted against Ramas
and Dimaano
3. The evidence adduced against Ramas does not constitute a prima facie case against him
4. There was an illegal search and seizure of the items confiscated

ISSUE:

 Dec 4, 1991, petitioner filed its Motion for Reconsideration.

Contends that
1. Respondent court erred. Such conclusions were premature, having been rendered prior to the
completion of the presentation of the evidence of the petitioner
2. Respondent court erred, in basing its ruling on the SC in Cruz, jr vs Sandiganbayan and Republic v
Migrino because
a. They are not applicable to this case
b. Any procedural defect in the complaint was cured and waived by respondents with the filing of their
answers
c. The separate motions to dismiss were evidently improper considering that they were
3. Respondent court erred in holding the things confiscated from the house of respondent Dimaano were
illegally seized and therefore excluded as evidence
Held:

 On the First Issue, The court held that PCGG had no jurisdiction
- The PCGG through its AFB Board, can only investigate the unexplained wealth and corrupt
practices of AFP personnel who fall under either of the two categories mentioned in Sec 2 of the
EO
1. AFP personnel who have accumulated ill-gotten wealth during the administration of Former
Pres Marcos by being the latters’ immediate Family, relative, subordinate or close associate,
taking undue advantage of their public office or using their powers’ influence
2. AFP personnel involved in other cases of graft and corruption provided the President assigns
their cases to the PCGG
- Petitioner argues that Respondent was a subordinate of Marcos
 The court held that he wasn’t. Mere position held by a military officer does not automatically
make him a subordinate absent showing that he enjoyed a close association with Marcos. The
PCGG has to provide a prima facie showing that Ramas was a close associate of Marcos and
they failed to do so.
 Moreover the amended complaint does not show that the properties Ramas allegedly owned
were accumulated by him in his capacity as a subordinate of Marcos.
- Petitioner argues that the omission stating that Ramas unlawfully accumulated wealth by virtue of
his close association with Marcos was not fatal
 The court held that it was fatal. It is precisely what the EO was created for