Republic vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division) and Asistio, Jr.

The Court held that for cases involving unlawfully acquired wealth amassed before February 25, 1986, the authority to file a petition for forfeiture under Republic Act No. 1379 remains with the Office of the Solicitor General, notwithstanding the jurisdictional transfer of such cases to the Sandiganbayan and the investigative and prosecutorial powers vested in the Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor.

Respondent Macario Asistio, Jr., then Mayor of Kalookan City, was charged in a joint letter-complaint with accumulating wealth manifestly out of proportion to his lawful income from 1981 to 1983. After a preliminary investigation, the Ombudsman found reasonable ground to believe a violation of Republic Act No. 1379 and/or Section 8 of Republic Act No. 3019 had been committed and indorsed the case to the Solicitor General for appropriate action pursuant to Section 2 of R.A. 1379. The Solicitor General subsequently filed a Petition for Forfeiture before the Sandiganbayan.

• In January 1989, a complaint was filed with the Ombudsman alleging that Mayor Macario Asistio, Jr. acquired wealth from 1981 to 1983 totaling P17,264,722.90, which was manifestly out of proportion to his declared income.
• The Ombudsman conducted a preliminary investigation, found reasonable ground to believe a violation of R.A. 1379 and/or R.A. 3019 had been committed, and on March 31, 1989, indorsed the case to the Solicitor General for appropriate action under Section 2 of R.A. 1379.
• On April 28, 1989, the Solicitor General filed a Petition for Forfeiture before the Sandiganbayan.
• Respondent Asistio moved to dismiss, arguing the Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction, R.A. 1379 was unconstitutional, and the petition stated no cause of action.
• The Sandiganbayan dismissed the petition, holding that under Presidential Decrees Nos. 1630 and 1861, the Ombudsman (formerly Tanodbayan) had the exclusive authority to file informations and prosecute all cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, including forfeiture cases under R.A. 1379.

• The Solicitor General argued that the exclusive authority of the Tanodbayan/Ombudsman under P.D. Nos. 1630 and 1861 to file "informations" and prosecute cases did not include the authority to file a "petition for forfeiture," as an information pertains to criminal proceedings while a petition for forfeiture is a civil action in rem.
• Petitioner contended that the specific provision of R.A. 1379 authorizing the Solicitor General to file the petition should prevail over the general provisions of the later decrees.
• Petitioner also asserted that the legislative history showed the Solicitor General's authority was revived upon the repeal of P.D. No. 1486.

• Respondent Asistio supported the Sandiganbayan's ruling, arguing that the transfer of jurisdiction over R.A. 1379 violations to the Sandiganbayan necessarily transferred the authority to file the forfeiture petition to the Ombudsman, who had exclusive prosecutorial authority over Sandiganbayan cases.
• Respondent also challenged the constitutionality of R.A. 1379.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in dismissing the petition for forfeiture on the ground that the Solicitor General lacked authority to file it.
• Substantive Issues: Whether the Office of the Ombudsman or the Office of the Solicitor General has the authority to file a petition for forfeiture under Republic Act No. 1379 for wealth amassed before February 25, 1986.

• Procedural: The Court found the Sandiganbayan erred in dismissing the petition. It held that the Sandiganbayan's interpretation of the relevant decrees was incorrect, as it failed to account for the distinction between criminal informations and civil forfeiture petitions, and the effect of the repeal of P.D. No. 1486.
• Substantive: The Court ruled that the Solicitor General's authority to file forfeiture petitions under Section 2 of R.A. 1379 was impliedly repealed by P.D. No. 1486 but was revived when P.D. No. 1486 was itself expressly repealed by P.D. No. 1606. The Ombudsman's power to initiate forfeiture proceedings under R.A. 6770 is limited to wealth amassed after February 25, 1986. Therefore, for pre-1986 wealth, the Solicitor General retains the authority to file the petition.

• Implied Repeal and Revival of Prior Law — The Court applied the rule that where a law which repeals a prior law by implication is itself repealed, the prior law is revived unless the repealing statute provides otherwise. Here, P.D. No. 1486 impliedly repealed the Solicitor General's authority under R.A. 1379, but when P.D. No. 1486 was expressly repealed by P.D. No. 1606, the Solicitor General's authority was revived.
• Distinction Between Criminal Information and Civil Petition — The Court emphasized that the Tanodbayan's/Ombudsman's statutory authority to file "informations" for cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan refers to criminal accusations, not civil forfeiture petitions, which are actions in rem.

• "The rule is settled that forfeiture proceedings are actions in rem and therefore, civil in nature." — This underscores the Court's distinction between the civil nature of a forfeiture petition and the criminal nature of an information, which is central to limiting the Ombudsman's prosecutorial authority.
• "It is a respected rule of statutory construction that 'where a law which repeals a prior law, not expressly but by implication, is itself repealed, ... the repeal of the repealing law revives the prior law, unless the language of the repealing statute provides otherwise.'" — This states the controlling legal principle applied to resolve the statutory conflict.

• Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., 160 SCRA 843 (1988) — Cited to explain that under the 1987 Constitution, the Special Prosecutor is a subordinate of the Ombudsman and can investigate and prosecute cases only upon the latter's authority, supporting the conclusion that the Special Prosecutor cannot independently file forfeiture petitions.
• Pascual vs. Commissioner of Customs, 4 SCRA 1020 (1962) — Cited for the proposition that forfeiture proceedings are actions in rem.
• U.S. vs. Soliman, 36 Phil. 5 (1917) — Cited as the source of the rule of statutory construction regarding the revival of a prior law upon the repeal of its repealing law.

• Republic Act No. 1379, Section 2 — The original statute authorizing the Solicitor General to file a petition for forfeiture in the Court of First Instance upon certification from the fiscal.
• Presidential Decree No. 1486, Section 4(d) — Originally vested the Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction over forfeiture proceedings under R.A. 1379 and, by implication, transferred filing authority to the Chief Special Prosecutor.
• Presidential Decree No. 1606 — Expressly repealed P.D. No. 1486, thereby reviving the Solicitor General's authority under R.A. 1379.
• Presidential Decree No. 1630, Section 17 & Presidential Decree No. 1861, Section 3 — Granted the Tanodbayan exclusive authority to file "informations" and prosecute cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. The Court held this did not encompass civil forfeiture petitions.
• Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989), Section 15(11) — Vests in the Ombudsman the power to investigate and initiate action for recovery of ill-gotten wealth amassed after February 25, 1986, which the Court interpreted as a temporal limitation on its initiating authority.