The Daily Tribune <<< Without Fear or Favor >>>

»HEADLINES

»NATION

SC drops forfeiture raps vs Garcia’s wife, children

By Benjamin B. Pulta

10/31/2009

| More

The Supreme Court (SC) has ordered the Sandiganbayan to stop hearing the two forfeiture cases filed against the wife and children of retired Armed Forces of the Philippines comptroller Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia by the Office of the Ombudsman due to lack of jurisdiction.

In a 16-page decision signed by Associate Jus-tice Presbitero Velasco Jr., the high court’s Third Division held that the anti-graft court did not acquire jurisdiction over Garcia’s wife Clarita and sons Ian Carl, Juan Paulo and Timothy Mark due to the improper service of substituted summons.

According to the high tribunal, the summons against Clarita and her children which were personally served on Garcia, who is detained at the Philippine National Police Detention Center, failed in not complying with the requirements laid down by the SC in “Manotoc v. Court of Appeals.”

Under the ruling, the SC stressed that the sheriff must show that

defendant cannot be served promptly or there impossibility of prompt service within reasonable time; sheriff must show several attempts for personal service of at least three ties on at least two different dates; the sheriff must describe in the return of summons the facts and circumstances surrounding the attempted personal service; substituted effected on a person of suitable age and discretion residing at defendant’s house or resident or on a competent person in charge of defendant’s office or regular place of business.

The high court said the Sandiganbayan’s sheriff failed to comply with all the said requirements for a valid substituted service of summons.

“It is apparent that no valid substituted service of summons was made on petitioner and her children, as the service made through Maj. Gen. Garcia did not comply…with the requirements for a valid substituted service of summons…Hence, no valid substituted service of summons was made,” the SC stressed.

For the forfeiture cases to proceed, the high tribunal said the Sandiganbayan must serve anew summons or alias summons on the petitioner and the three children in order to acquire jurisdiction over their persons.

It also did not give credence to the argument of the government that the petitioners are estopped from questioning the improper service of substituted summons since the defect had been cured by their voluntary appearance in forfeiture cases.

The appearance of the petitioners before the Sandiganbayan, according to the SC, could not be considered voluntary since it was done for the purpose of filing pleadings and motions contesting the validity of the service of summons and the jurisdiction of the anti-graft court over them.

“Thus, it cannot be said that petitioner and her three children voluntarily appeared before the Sandiganbayan to cure the defective substituted services of summons. They are, therefore, not estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over their persons nor are they deemed to have waived such defense of lack of jurisdiction,” the SC declared.

Associate Justices Minita Chico-Nazario, Teresita Leonardo-de Castro and Diosdado Peralta concurred while Associate Justice Antonio Carpio issued a separate concurring and dissenting opinion.

The first forfeiture case was filed against the Garcias on Oct. 29, 2004 in a bid to recover unlawful funds and properties amounting to P143.05 million.

Another forfeiture case was filed against the Garcia family on July 5, 2005 to recover funds and properties amounting to P202 million.

Aside from these, the Ombudsman also charged the Garcias with violation of Republic Act (RA) 7080 or plunder for allegedly conspiring from 1993 to Nov. 17, 2004 to acquire ill-gotten wealth in the form of funds, landholdings and other real and personal properties amounting to P303.2 million by receiving commissions, gifts, shares, percentages, kickbacks or other forms of pecuniary benefits like “shopping money or gratitude money” from several suppliers in connection with government contracts.

The Garcias argued that the forfeiture cases against them should have already been dismissed since both cases are now covered in the plunder case.

But the SC said the filing of the plunder case did not absorb the forfeiture cases since the latter is civil in nature while the former is criminal in nature.

“In a prosecution of plunder, what is sought to be established is the commission of the criminal acts in furtherance of the acquisition of ill-gotten wealth…On the other hand, all that the court needs to determine, by preponderance of evidence, under RA 1379 (forfeiture law) is the disproportion of respondent’s properties to his legitimate income, it being unnecessary to prove how he acquired said properties,” the SC said.