Silverio v. Presidential Commission on Good Government
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ricardo Silverio, a businessman, was among the defendants in a complaint for graft and corrupt practices filed by the Office of the Solicitor General with the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG). The PCGG issued several writs of sequestration against petitioner's properties. Petitioner filed a motion to quash the complaint and lift the sequestrations, arguing lack of alleged connection to other defendants and absence of overt acts for a common criminal design, and lack of probable cause for sequestration. Procedural History: The PCGG issued a notice for hearing, stating that it found prima facie evidence that defendants acquired assets disproportionate to their income and requiring them to show cause why judicial proceedings should not be instituted. Petitioner requested the PCGG to furnish him the prima facie evidence, which he claims was never provided despite the hearing proceeding as scheduled. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the PCGG in failing to act on his motion to quash and lift sequestrations due to the absence of a prima facie case. The PCGG submitted its Comment, and petitioner filed a Reply.
Issue(s)
Whether the PCGG committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing writs of sequestration without a prima facie case against the petitioner. Whether the petition is rendered moot and academic by the filing of a corresponding suit before the Sandiganbayan.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition for certiorari for lack of merit. It held that the PCGG has the power to issue writs of sequestration under Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2, and 14, but this power is qualified by Section 26 of the Transitory Provisions of the 1987 Constitution, requiring a prima facie case. The Court found that the evidence presented by the PCGG, including business reports and certifications showing petitioner's close association with former President Marcos and the acquisition of privileges and equipment through arrangements with him, established a prima facie case. Furthermore, the Court noted that the OSG had already filed the corresponding suit before the Sandiganbayan, rendering the petition moot and academic.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and the requirement of a prima facie case: The Court reiterated that under Section 26 of the Transitory Provisions of the 1987 Constitution, the PCGG can only issue sequestration or freeze orders upon a showing of a prima facie case. The Court examined the documents submitted by the PCGG, which included a business report from the petitioner to former President Marcos expressing gratitude for privileges and assistance, certifications committing to pay substantial amounts for equipment awards facilitated by arrangements with a public official, and stock certificates and dividend checks. These documents, according to the Court, demonstrated a prima facie case that the petitioner's business interests enjoyed considerable privileges obtained from former President Marcos in violation of laws, due to his close association with the former President. The Court concluded that these documents were sufficient to establish the prima facie case required to authorize the PCGG to institute legal action against the petitioner. On the issue of the petition being moot and academic: The Court took judicial notice that before September 1987, the Office of the Solicitor General had already filed the corresponding suit against the defendants in I.S. No. 1-A before the Sandiganbayan. On this basis alone, the instant petition for certiorari was rendered moot and academic. The Court emphasized that the PCGG's power to sequester is for the purpose of conserving property until it can be determined through appropriate judicial proceedings whether it was ill-gotten, and the subsequent filing of the main case before the Sandiganbayan addresses this ultimate determination.
Main Doctrine
The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) is empowered to issue writs of sequestration to recover illegally acquired wealth, but such writs must be issued upon a showing of a prima facie case, as mandated by Section 26 of the Transitory Provisions of the 1987 Constitution. The existence of prima facie evidence is sufficient to authorize the PCGG to institute legal action.