Name: Alvarico, Kristel Rose C.

Subject: Constitutional Law II

Section: JD1B Professor: Atty. Marcelino Marata

Republic of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan,

Major General Josephus Q. Ramas and Elizabeth Dimaano
G.R. 104768

Ponente: Carpio, J.

Facts of the case:

Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari seeking to set aside the Resolutions of the
Sandiganbayan (1st Division) which ordered the return of the confiscated items to respondent
Elizabeth Dimaano and relief for denying the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration through its
Amended Complaint and the remand of the case to the Sandiganbayan (First Division) for further
proceedings.

Chairman Jovito R Salonga created an AFP Anti-Graft Board (AFP Board) to investigate the unexplained
ill-gotten wealth of its officials. Salonga and issued a Resolution on its findings and recommendation
on the unexplained wealth of Ramas on the following:

o Ramas as the owner of house and lot in Quezon City and Cebu City, with lot area of 3,327
square meters with P700,000.00 estimated value of the former;
o Elizabeth Dimaano was found to have possessed some equipment, items and communication
facilities within her premises which were believed be given to her to use by respondent
Commanding General of the Philippines. These were confiscated with an invoice receipt in the
name of Capt. Efren Salido, RSO Command Coy, MSC, PA
o Money amounting to P2,870,000.00 and $50,000.00 US dollar, military equipment, items and
communications were also taken during the raid conducted on March 3, 1986.
o From the affidavits of the military personnel, Elizabeth Dimaano was the mistress of the
respondent and that Ramas usually stays, goes and sleeps in the alleged house of Elizabeth
Dimaano in Brgy, Tengga, Itaas, Batangas City.
o On February 25, 1986, four (4) attache cases filled with money owned by MGen Ramas was
delivered by a person riding in a car.
o Sworn statement in the record also disclosed that Elizabeth Dimaano had no visible means of
income and is supported by respondent for she was a formerly secretary.
o The SALN of Ramos was submitted for analysis by the Board’s consultant and was found out
that the abovementioned amount of money was not included and that only P104,134.60 was
disclosed as his unexplained wealth.

With such information known by the AFP Board, the MTC-Batangas Branch 1 issued a warrant and
listed the search and seizure of the following items in the house of Elizabeth Dimaano’s residence: five
(5) baby armalite rifles and five (5) boxes of ammunition.

Upon effecting the search warrant captioned “Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition” on
March 3, 1986, Dimaano was not present during the raid but Dimaano’s cousins witnessed the raid.
Seized during the search was items detained in the receipt together with the other items not included
in the search warrant. They seized:

o 1 baby armalite riffle with 2 magazines

 o 40 rounds of 5.56 ammunition
o 1 pistol caliber 0.45
o Communications equipment
o Cash (P2,870,000.00 and $50,000.00)
o Jewelry
o Land titles

Petitioner further added that the Court should take notice that the raiding team conducted the search
on March 3, 1986 or 5 days after the successful EDA Revolution, asserting that the revolutionary
government effectively withheld the operation of the 1973 Constitution which guaranteed private
respondents’ exclusionary right – with the resulting government 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

Issue/s:

1. Whether or not there was an illegal search and seizure of the items confiscated;
2. Whether Bill of Rights was operative during the interregnum.

Held/ruling:

Legality of the Search and Seizure:

Yes. The petitioner is partly right in its arguments. The search warrant captioned “Illegal Possession of
Firearms and Ammunition” served on March 3, 1986, Dimaano was not present during the raid but
Dimaano’s cousins witnessed the raid.

The warrant issued by the 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.
HOWEVER, the Constabulary team seized items not included in the warrant and these were even
admitted by the petitioner’s witnesses of which the raiding team confiscated the items that are not
included in the warrant.

The team had no legal basis to seize the items without showing that these items could be the subject
of warrantless search and seizure – raiding team exceeded its authority when it seized these items.

Whether the Bill of Rights was operative during interregnum

No. Court held that the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution was not operative during the
interregnum but ruled that the protection accorded to individuals under the Covenant and the
Declaration remained in effect during the interregnum.

During interregnum, the directives and orders of the revolutionary government were supreme law
because no constitution limited the extent and scope of such directives and orders. 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 Philippines is a signatory of the Declaration, provided in its Article 17(2) that “no one shall be
arbitrarily deprived of his property” which the Court interpreted the Declaration as part of the
generally accepted principles of international law and binding on the State.

As the de jure government, the revolutionary government could not escape responsibility for State’s
good faith compliance with its treaty obligation under international law.
During the interregnum, when no constitution or Bill of Rights existed, directives and orders issued by
the government officers were valid so long as these officers did not exceed the authority granted by
them by the revolutionary government.

It is obvious from the testimony of Capt. Sebastian that the warrant did not include the monies,
communications equipment, jewelry and land titles that the raiding ream confiscated. The search
warrant did not particularly describe such items and the raiding team confiscated them on its own
authority.

The Court ordered that the records of the case be remanded to the Ombudsman for appropriate
action as the evidence, any warrant and to refer the case to the Commissioner of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue for determination of any tax liability of respondent Elizabeth Dimaano.
 Republic of the Philippines v. Honorable Sandiganbayan,
Ferdinand Marcos represented by his estate/heirs
G.R. No. 152154

Ponente: Corona, J.

Facts of the case:

On December 17, 1991, a petition was filed for the forfeiture before the Sandiganbayan for Civil Case
No. 0141 by petitioner through PCGG as represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), in
relation to EO Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A.

The petitioner sought the declaration and forfeiture of US$356 million (estimated to be more than
US$656 million including interest) deposited in escrow in the PNB, as ill-gotten wealth which are being
held by 5 foreign foundations in certain Swiss Banks and were frozen at the Central bank of the
Philippines by virtue of freeze order by PCGG.

Before the case was set for pre-trial, a general Agreement and the Supplemental Agreements dated
December 28, 1993 were executed by the Marcos children between the PCGG for the global
settlement of Marcoses assets.

The petitioner was able to have the US$356M be frozen from the Swiss Bank and was declared to be
illegal provenance by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.

On November 20, 1997, the Sandiganbayan denied the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment
and judgment on pleadings.

On August 10, 1995, petitioner was granted by the District Attorney in Zurich, Switzerland for another
request for the immediate transfer of deposits to an escrow account in the PNB which was granted.
On appeal, the Marcoses upheld the ruling of the District Attorney of Zurich for the request of transfer
of funds.

In 1998, the funds were remitted to the Philippines in escrow and had the Marcos children move the
funds and be placed in custodia legis out of the fear that PNB was in danger of dissipation by petitioner.
Such motion was granted by the Sandiganbayan.

On September 19, 2000, the Sandiganbayan denied petitioner’s motion for summary judgment
concluding the evidence presented did not prove that the money in Swiss Banks belonged to the
Marcos spouse since there is legal proof or record regarding the ownership of the Marcoses and the
basis for the forfeiture in favor of the government cannot be deemed to have been established and
our judgment thereon, must also have been without basis.

Issues of the Case:

Whether or not petitioner Republic was able to prove its case for forfeiture in accordance with
Sections 2 and 3 of RA 1379.

Held/ruling:

Yes. The petitioner was able to establish a prima facie for the forfeiture in accordance with R.A. No.
1379. The Court held that the only known lawful income of $304,372.43 can therefore legally and
fairly serve as basis for determining the existence of a prima facie case of forfeiture of the Swiss funds.
The Marcoses failed to justify the lawful nature of their acquisition of the said assets and thus the
Swiss deposits should be considered ill-gotten wealth and forfeited in favor of the State in accordance
with Sec. 6 of RA No. 1379.

The General and Supplemental Agreements executed by petitioner and respondents on December 28,
1993 further bolstered the claim of petitioner Republic that its case for forfeiture was proven in
accordance with the requisites of Secs. 2 and 3 of RA No. 1379.

It was agreed by both parties that the private party shall be entitled to the equivalent of 25% of the
amount that may be eventually withdrawn from the $356M Swiss deposits

There is no merit to the contention of Marcoses. The declaration of said agreements was premised on
the constitutional and statutory infirmities:

1) The grant of criminal immunity to the Marcos heirs was against the law;
2) The PCGG’s commitment to exempt from all forms of taxes and properties to be retained by
the Marcos heirs was against the Constitution;
3) The government’s undertaking to cause the dismissal of all cases field against the Marcoses
pending before the Sandiganbayan and other courts encroached on the powers of the
judiciary

Under RA 1379, on Sections 2 and 3, it raises the prima facie presumption that a property is unlawfully
acquired, it is subject to forfeiture, if its amount or value is manifestly disproportionate to the official
salary and other lawful income of the public officer who owns it. By virtue of such judgment, the
property shall become the property of the State, provided that no judgment shall be rendered within
6 months before any general election or within 3 months before nay special election.

The following facts must be established in order that forfeiture or seizure of the Swiss deposits may
be effected:

1) Ownership by the public officer or money or property acquired during his incumbency,
whether it be in his name or otherwise;
2) The extent to which the amount of that money or property exceeds, the grossly
disproportionate to, the legitimate income of the public officer.

Failure to file their SAL was itself a violation and to allow them to successful assail the Republic for not
presenting their SAL would reward them, for their violation of the law. Mrs. Marcos also admitted
ownership of the Swiss bank deposits by failing to deny under oath the genuineness and due execution
of certain actionable documents bearing her signature attached to the petition.

Petition of the Republic is granted, assailing the Resolution of Sandiganbayan to set aside and that the
Swiss deposits which were transferred to and now deposited in escrow at the PNB in estimated
aggregated amount of US$658,175,373.60 as of January 31, 2002 plus interest are hereby forfeited in
favor of the petitioner, Republic of the Philippines.
 Republic of the Philippines v. Honorable Sandiganbayan,
Ferdinand Marcos represented by his estate/heirs
G.R. No. 152154

Resolution

Ponente: Corona, J.

Facts of the Case:

Respondents Imelda R. Marcos, Irene Marcos-Araneta, Mar Imelda Marcos and Ferdinand R. Marcos
Jr., to seek reconsideration of the decision made on July 15, 2002 which ruled in favor of the petitioner,
Republic of the Philippines for the forfeiture of the Swiss deposits in escrow at the Philippine National
Bank (PNB) with the estimated aggregated amount of US$658,175,373.60 as of January 31, 2002.

Respondent Imelda R. Marcos asks the Court to set aside the ruling of the court made on July 15, 2002
and filed a motion for reconsideration contending the that she has been deprived of due process.

Respondents contented that RA No. 1379 is penal in substance and effect, thus entitling them to the
constitutional safeguards enjoyed by an accused.

Issue/s of the case:

Whether or not the Honorable Court effectively deprived the respondents of their constitutionally
enshrined right to due process.

Held/ruling:

No. Due process of law has two aspects: substantive and procedural due process. In order that a
particular act may not be impugned as violative of the due process clause, there must be compliance
with both substantive and the procedural requirements.

There is no showing that R.A. No. 1379 is unfair, unreasonable or unjust. The respondent Marcoses
are not being deprived of their property through forfeiture for arbitrary reasons or on flimsy grounds.
E.O. No. 1 of Pres. Aquino was made to create the PCGG which is tasked to recover any ill-gotten
wealth, as provided by RA No. 1379, any stolen government resources amassed by former Pres.
Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, close associates and other cronies and have been stashed
away here and in abroad.

In the case at bar, the responded Marcoses were afforded opportunity to argue their case to the court
and have engaged in all of the lengthy discussions, argumentation, deliberations and conferences, and
submitted their pleadings, documents and other papers. This opportunity was made completely
available to respondents who participated in all stages of the litigation. This is evidenced for the 12
long years and respondent Marcoses tried to stave off the case with nothing but empty claims of “lack
of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief” or “they were not privy to the transactions”
or “they could not remember the event that happened a long time ago” or “the assets were lawfully
acquired.”

Motion of the respondents were hereby denied with finality.