Virata vs. Sandiganbayan
| G.R. No. 86926, G.R. No. 86949 | October 15, 1991 | J. Davide Jr. |
Article III - Sec. 22 (PCGG Charter) |
Petitioners:
1st G.R.: Cesar E. A. Virata
2nd G.R.: Placido L.
Mapa
Respondents:
The Honorable Sandiganbayan and The Republic of the
Philippines
Recit Ready Summary:
The PCGG filed a complaint against Kokoy Romualdez and 44 others for the recovery of the ill-gotten wealth. It was alleged
that they acquired such wealth through their breach of trust and of their obligations as public officers and that they took undue
advantage of their relationship with the Marcoses and engaged in schemes to unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of
the Filipino people. The defendants in the case questioned the authority of the PCGG and the Solicitor General in initiating the
complaint because the Constitution has divested them of such authority. It was within the exclusive power of the Tanodbayan
to do this. They also contended that they will not be accorded equal protection of the laws and that the E.O. which
empowered the PCGG and the Solicitor General in initiating cases is a bill of attainder and is an ex post facto law.
The issue in this case was W/N the PCGG Charter violates the equal protection clause, is a bill of attainder or an ex post
facto law?
HELD:
The E.O. did not divest the Tanodbayan of his authority to prosecute, rather it gave them and the PCGG concurrent
jurisdiction.The PCGG Charter composed of the executive orders does not violate the equal protection clause and is neither a
bill of attainder nor an ex post facto law. The constitutionality of the law is always presumed and this was not aptly rebutted.It
is not an ex post facto law because it does not alter the legal rules of evidence and does not require a lesser degree of
testimony than what the law required at the time of the commission of the offense. Nothing has been altered in terms of the
quantum of evidence or proof required.
FACTS:
- These are petitions for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a restraining order or injunction urging this Court to
review and annul the resolutions of respondent Sandiganbayan entitled Republic of the Philippines vs. Benjamin
(Kokoy) Romualdez
- 31 July 1987 – PCGG filed a complaint against Kokoy Romualdez and 44 others for “ill-gotten wealth consisting of
funds and other property which they, in unlawful concert with one another had acquired and accumulated in flagrant
breach of trust and of their fiduciary obligations as public officers with grave abuse of rights and power and in brazen
violation of the Constitution and the laws of the RP resulting in their unjust enrichment during the rule of Marcos.
Likewise, theft of public funds, plunder, extortion, blackmail, bribery, corruption, etc.
- Petitioners contend that the PCGG Charter (composed of EO 1, 2, and 14) violates the equal protection clause, is a
bill of attainder or an ex post facto law
ISSUE: W/N the PCGG Charter (composed of EO 1, 2, and 14) violates the equal protection clause, is a bill
of attainder or an ex post facto law?
NO
HELD:
- The PCGG Charter does not violate the equal protection clause and is not a bill of attainder or an ex post facto law.
The constitutionality of laws is presumed. To justify nullification of a law, there must be a clear and unequivocal
breach of the Constitution, not a doubtful or argumentative implication; a law shall not be declared invalid unless the
conflict with the Constitution is clear and beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption is always in favor of
constitutionality
- In the BASECO case:
- Neither will this Court sustain the theory that the executive orders in question are a bill of attainder. A bill of
attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial. Its essence is the substitution of a
legislative for a judicial determination of guilt
- In the first place, nothing in the executive orders can be reasonably construed as a determination or
declaration of guilt. On the contrary, the executive orders, inclusive of EO 14 make it perfectly clear that any
judgment of guilt in the amassing of acquisition of “ill-gotten wealth” is to be handed down by a judicial
tribunal, upon complaint filed and prosecuted by the PCGG
- No punishment is inflicted by the executive orders, as the merest glance at their provisions will immediately
make apparent. In no sense, therefore, may the executive orders be regarded as a bill of attainder.
- Equally untenable is the claim that the PCGG Charter is ex post facto because it alters the legal rules of evidence
and receives less or different testimony than what the law required at the time of the commission of the offense in
order to convict the offender.
- For both the civil and criminal cases covered by the PCGG Charter, nothing has been altered in terms of the
quantum of proof required for an adverse judgment against the defendants or a judgment of conviction
against the accused, respectively. The plaintiff’s burden to establish a preponderance of evidence in the
former and proof beyond reasonable doubt in the latter has not been altered or modified.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, for want of merit, the instant petitions are DISMISSED. Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED.
Comments
Post a Comment