EN BANC against Ramas does not constitute a prima facie, and (4) there was an illegal search
and seizure of the items confiscated.
[G.R. No. 104768. July 21, 2003.]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, MAJOR GENERAL
JOSEPHUS Q. RAMAS and ELIZABETH DIMAANO, respondents.
Facts:
Pursuant to the mandate of the Presidential Commission on Good Governance (PCGG)
whose primary task is to recover all ill-gotten wealth of former President Ferdinand
Marcos (Marcos), and the creation of the AFP Anti-Graft Board (AFP Board), an
investigation was launched regarding various reports of unexplained wealth of the
respondent, Major General Josephus Q. Ramas (Ramas), and issued a resolution on its
findings. In the resolution, it was stated that Ramas owns two (2) house and lots
located both in Quezon City and Cebu city.
On March 1986, money, various items, including military equipment were found by
the raiding team in the house of Ramas’s mistress, Elizabeth Dimaano (Dimaano), and
the confiscated elements appeared to be covered by invoice receipts in the name of
Capt. Efren Salido did not appear in the search warrant. These said items could not
have been in Dimaano’s possession, unless given to her by Ramas. In a sworn
statement, it was also disclosed that Dimaano had no visible means of income and is
dependent to Ramas, and the seized properties were not declared in her Statement
of Assets and Liabilities.
On August 1987, the PCGG filed a petition for forfeiture under R.A. 1379 against
Ramas, but before he could answer the petition, Solicitor General Francisco Chavez
(Chavez) filed an amended complaint naming the Republic of the Philippines as the
petitioner, and himself as the Commanding General of the Philippine Army, and
Dimaano as an army clerk-typist, as co-defendants. The amended complaint further
alleged that Ramas’s funds, assets, and properties were not in accordance to the
proportion of his salary, and that these were obtaned through taking advantage of his
public affiliation and influence as a close associate of Marcos.
In return, Ramas filed an answer confirming his property in Quezon City, but denying
the one in Cebu, and stated that his property in Quezon City alone was in proportion
to his salary as a military officer. Dimaano also filed her own answer, admitting her
employment as an army clerk-typist in Ramas’s office, and only claimed ownership of
the monies, communications equipment, jewelry, and land titles taken from her house
during the raid. The trial went through, however, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the
complaint due to the following grounds: (1) the actions taken by the PCGG were not
in accordance with SC precedents, (2) no previous inquiry similar to preliminary
investigations in criminal cases was conducted against the respondents, (3) evidence
Petitioner then filed with the SC a petition for review on certiorari seeking to set aside
the resolutions of the Sandiganbayan with regards to the illegal searches and seizure
of Dimaano’s property, and to allow the petitioner to complete the presentation of its
evidence.
Issue/s:
1. Whether or not PCGG has jurisdiction to investigate respondents
2. Whether or not the dismissal of case was proper before petitioner was able
to finish presenting evidence
3. Whether or not there was an illegal search and seizure of Dimaano’s
preoperties
Ruling:
Petition of certoriari is DISMISSED.
1. The PCGG through its AFP Board can only investigate unexplained wealth and
corrupt practices of AFP personnel if it falls in either two (2) categories. First
if they have accumulated wealth during the Marcos regime by being the late
dictator’s immediate family, relative, subordinate or close associate, taking
undue advantage of their public office or using their powers, influence, or
second, if the president assigns the case to PCGG. The second category does
not in any way apply. With regards to the first category, while it was true that
Ramas received direct orders from Marcos as a military office, it does not
directly mean that he is a ‘subordinate’ of the late dictator. Invoking the
doctrine of ejusdem generis, “immediate family, relative, subordinate or
close associate, taking undue advantage of their public office or using their
powers, influence.”
2. The SC ruled that only the petitioner can be blamed for its non-completion
of the presentation of evidence The case has been pending for four (4) years
before the Sandiganbayan dismissed it, and the petitioner had almost 2 years
to prepare its evidence, however, despite this, the petitioner still delayed its
presentations through filing numerous motions por postponements and
extensions.
3. On March 1986, the search warrant only constituted “Illegal possession of
firearms and ammunition”, however in the receipt, the raiders seized times
even though they were not in the said warrant. The petitioners contended
that the EDSA revolution was held successful 5 days prior to the day of the
raid, hence, the 1973 constitution which guaranteed the respondent’s right
against searches and seizures was not in effect. The question now arises
whether or not the revolutionary government of Aquino was bound by the
1973 constitution during the interregnum, even when it was done in defiance
of the same constitution. The SC then ruled that the Bill of Rights under the
1973 constitution was not operative, however, the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, as well as the Universal Declaration on Human Rights
were.