G.R. No.

104768,
July 21, 2003
Group 2
 Republic of the Philippines,
Petitioner, VS. Sandiganbayan, Major
General Josephus Q. Ramas and
Elizabeth Dimaano, Respondent
 WHAT IS THE CASE ALL ABOUT?

The petitioner petitioned for review on certiorari seeking to set

aside the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan. The first Resolution
dismissed petitioner’s Amended Complaint and ordered the
return of the confiscated items to respondent Elizabeth Dimaano,
while the second Resolution denied petitioner’s Motion for
Reconsideration. Petitioner prays for the grant of the reliefs
sought in its Amended Complaint, or in the alternative, for the
remand of this case to the Sandiganbayan (First Division) for
further proceedings allowing petitioner to complete the
presentation of its evidence.
 01

FACTS
You can enter a subtitle here if you need it
 FACTS
The former President Corazon C. Aquino, after the assumption, issued the Executive Order No. 1 creating the
Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG). EO No. 1 is primarily tasked to recover all ill-gotten
wealth of the former Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close associates.
The PCGG, through its then Chairman Jovito R. Salonga, created an AFP Anti-Graft Board ("AFP Board")
tasked to investigate reports of unexplained wealth and corrupt practices by AFP personnel, whether in the
active service or retired.

Based on its mandate, the AFP Board investigated various reports of alleged unexplained wealth of respondent
Major General Josephus Q. Ramas ("Ramas"). On 27 July 1987, the AFP Board issued a Resolution on its
findings and recommendation on the reported unexplained wealth of Ramas.

The Findings and Evaluation presents that Ramas is an owner of a house and at Quezon City and at Cebu City.
The equipment/items and communication facilities which were found in the premises of Elizabeth Dimaano, the
mistress of respondent, were confiscated by elements of the PC Command of Batangas were all covered by
invoice receipt in the name of CAPT. EFREN SALIDO. These items could not have been in the possession of
Elizabeth Dimaano has no means of income and was just a secretary so her assets in her possession were
given for her use by respondent Commanding General of the Philippine Army.

Aside from the military equipment/items and communications equipment, the raiding team was also able to
confiscate money in the amount of ₱2,870,000.00 and $50,000 US Dollars in the house of Elizabeth Dimaano
on 3 March 1986.
 FACTS
In view of the foregoing, the Board finds that a prima facie case exists against respondent for ill-gotten and
unexplained wealth in the amount of ₱2,974,134.00 and $50,000 US Dollars.

It was recommended that Maj. Gen. Josephus Q. Ramas be prosecuted and tried for violation of RA 3019, as
amended, otherwise known as "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act" and RA 1379, as amended, otherwise
known as "The Act for the Forfeiture of Unlawfully Acquired Property.

And due to the lack of evidence, the Petitioner pushed back the date of the trial up to 4 years.
 02

ISSUES
You can enter a subtitle here if you need it
 ENUMERATED ISSUES
1. DOES THE PCGG HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO
INVESTIGATE THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS NAMELY:
MAJOR GENERAL JOSEPHUS Q. RAMAS AND ELIZABETH
DIMAANO?
2. WHETHER OR NOT THE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN
DISMISSING THE CASE BEFORE COMPLETION OF THE
PRESENTATION OF PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE?
3. WHETHER OR NOT THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE
CONDUCTED BY THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY
RAIDING TEAM WAS LEGAL?
1.
DOES THE PCGG HAVE THE
JURISDICTION TO INVESTIGATE
THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS
NAMELY: MAJOR GENERAL
JOSEPHUS Q. RAMAS AND
ELIZABETH DIMAANO?
 HELD:

No, the PCGG has no such Jurisdiction to investigate

the private respondents.

The PCGG created the AFP board in order to investigate

the unexplained wealth amassed through corrupt
practices of AFP personnel, active or retired. This task
is pursuant to the power given to the PCGG under
Section 3 of Executive Order No. 1 issued by
President Corazon C. Aquino. Whereas, citing Section
2 of EO No.1
 HELD:

Sec. 2. The Commission shall be charged with the task of assisting the
President in regard to the following matters:
(a) The recovery of all ill-gotten wealth accumulated by former President
Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close
associates, whether located in the Philippines or abroad, including the
takeover and sequestration of all business enterprises and entities owned or
controlled by them, during his administration, directly or through nominees, by
taking undue advantage of their public office and/ or using their powers,
authority, influence, connections or relationship.
(b) The investigation of such cases of graft and corruption as the President may
assign to the Commission from time to time.
 HELD:

However, the PCGG through the AFP Board, failed to supply sufficient proof to
their allegation that the respondent Major General Josephus Q. Ramas, being
the Commanding General of the Philippine Army is indeed, conforming to the
term “subordinate” of President Ferdinand E. Marcos.

Whereas the term “subordinate” as cited in Executive Order No. 1 is defined as

“the one who enjoys a close association with former President Marcos
and/or his wife, similar to immediate family members, relative, and close
associate in EO No. 1 and the close relative, business associate, dummy,
agent or nominee in EO No. 2.”
 HELD:

Now, the investigation and prosecution for the forfeiture

petitions not falling under EO No. 1, particularly to the
span of the powers vested on the PCGG, the unexplained
amassed wealth on or before February 25, 1986 (EDSA
Revolution) should have been under the jurisdiction of the
Ombudsman in accordance to Republic Act No. 6770.
 HELD:
Consequently, the petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by the
PCGG to conduct the preliminary investigation. The Ombudsman may still
conduct the proper preliminary investigation for violation of RA No. 1379, and
if warranted, the Solicitor General may file the forfeiture petition with the
Sandiganbayan. The right of the State to forfeit unexplained wealth under RA
No. 1379 is not subject to prescription, laches or estoppel.

Hence, The PCGG cannot then exercise investigative or prosecutorial powers for
it is not granted to the petitioner. The PCGG’s sole task is to recover the
illegally – amassed wealth of the Marcoses, their relatives and cronies, to wit,
PCGG failed to supplicate that MGen Ramas and Elizabeth Dimaano falls
under such category. Without these elements, the PCGG cannot claim
jurisdiction over the said case.
2.
WHETHER OR NOT THE
SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN
DISMISSING THE CASE BEFORE
COMPLETION OF THE
PRESENTATION OF PETITIONER'S
EVIDENCE?
 HELD:
No, the Sandiganbayan found the petitioner to blame and not the court in
the alleged error of dismissing the said case filed by the petitioner
against respondents MGen Josephus Q. Ramas and Elizabeth Dimaano.

The case filed by the petitioner paved its way towards its dismissal for it was
pending for four years before the decision of the Sandiganbayan decided to
dismiss the case. The petitioner filed its Amended Complaint on August 11,
1987 and began presenting its evidence on April 17, 1989, two years of
preparation to pool evidence against the respondents. However, the petitioner
delayed the presentation of evidence by filing motions for postponement and
extensions. On April 18, 1989, the petitioner filed a motion for Leave to Amend
the Complaint to charge the delinquent properties subject for forfeiture to
Dimaano alone.
 HELD:
The Sandiganbayan did not err, in its decision to refuse the
deferment/postponement of the presentation of petitioner’s evidence because
the petitioner did not plainly state when it would file its amended complaint.
Accepting the motion for leave would clearly cause additional delay to the
proceedings being conducted by the court. Whereas the court has gone
through extended inquiry and narration of the abovementioned events of the
case that is ready for trial for over a year due to the inability of the government
to produce evidence and witnesses. Of equal interest to both the petitioner
and respondents, the inability of the government to produce such evidence
necessary for the case to move shall cause, therefore, the case, in its
continuous progress, to revert back to its preliminary stage.
 HELD:

Based on the above mentioned situation, the petitioner has only itself to blame for
failure to complete the presentation of its evidence necessary for the case to
prosper. The Sandiganbayan gave the petitioner more than sufficient time to
finish the presentation of evidence.

Thus, the Sandiganbayan held that it did not err in dismissing the case
before the completion of the presentation of the evidence to be
supplicated by the petitioner.
3.
WHETHER OR NOT THE SEARCH
AND SEIZURE CONDUCTED BY
THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY
RAIDING TEAM WAS LEGAL?
 HELD:
The search and seizure conducted by the Philippine constabulary raiding
team was not legal.

The Constabulary Raiding team served a search warrant at Dimaano’s residence

captioned “Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition”. Dimaano
was not present during the raid. The raiding team seized the following items
detailed in seizure receipt together with items not included in the search
warrant: one baby armalite rifle with two magazines; 40 rounds of 5.56
ammunition; one pistol, caliber .4; communications equipment, cash
amounting to 2,870,000 in peso and 50,000 in dollars including jewelry and
land titles. These evidence seized at Dimaano’s residence consist mostly of
petitioner’s evidence against the private respondents.
 HELD:
The evidence seized is inadmissible as evidence against the respondent for plain
reason that the warrant, issued by a judge upon proper application, specified
the items to be searched and seized. Conversely, the raiding team seized
items at Dimaano’s residence that was not described in the warrant, this act of
the raiding team is in breach of the provisions of Article III, Section 2 of the
Bill of Rights in the 1987 Constitution. Even if the petitioner argues that the
respondent cannot invoke its exclusionary right against search and seizure
because the Bill of Rights is on its embryonic stage, hence, there is no
constitution in effect during the Interregnum. Additionally, the transition to
power during the revolution cancels the binding power of the 1973
constitution.
 HELD:

However, the revolutionary government did not repudiate the effects of the
covenant and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, whereas, The
revolutionary government, after installing itself as the de jure government,
assumed responsibility for the State’s good faith compliance with the
Covenant to which the Philippines is a signatory.
 HELD:
Article 2(1) of the Covenant requires each signatory State "to respect and to
ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the
rights, recognized in the present Covenant." Under Article 17(1) of the
Covenant, the revolutionary government had the duty to insure that "no one
shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family,
home or correspondence."
 HELD:
Going further, the search warrant did not particularly included the items such us
monies, communication equipment, jewelry and land titles that the raiding
team confiscated on their own authority.
The raiding team had no legal basis to seize these items without showing that
these items could be the subject of warrantless search and seizure. Clearly,
the raiding team exceeded its authority when it seized these items. The
seizure of these items was therefore void, and unless these items are
contraband per se, and they are not, hence, they must be returned to the
person from whom the raiding seized them. However, the honorable court
does not declare that such person is the lawful owner of these items, merely
that the search and seizure warrant could not be used as basis to seize and
withhold these items from the possessor. We thus hold that these items
should be returned immediately to Dimaano.
 03

RULING
You can enter a subtitle here if you need it
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED.
The questioned Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan
dated 18 November 1991 and 25 March 1992 in Civil
Case No. 0037, remanding the records of this case to
the Ombudsman for such appropriate action as the
evidence may warrant, and referring this case to the
Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue for a
determination of any tax liability of respondent
Elizabeth Dimaano, are AFFIRMED.
THANK YOU!
You can enter a subtitle here if you need it