Katigbak v. Solicitor General
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Two cases were filed concerning Republic Act No. 1379, "An Act Declaring Forfeiture in Favor of the State of Any Property Found To Have Been Unlawfully Acquired by Any Public Officer or Employee and Providing for the Proceedings Therefor." The first case (Civil Case No. 30823) was filed by Spouses Alejandro and Mercedes Katigbak, seeking to enjoin the Solicitor General from filing a forfeiture complaint against them, to declare R.A. No. 1379 unconstitutional as applied to properties acquired before its approval, and for damages against NBI officers and an Investigating Prosecutor. The second case (Civil Case No. 31080) was filed by the Republic of the Philippines against Alejandro Katigbak, his wife Mercedes, and son Benedicto, seeking forfeiture of properties allegedly illegally acquired by Alejandro Katigbak while in government service, with titles to some properties recorded in the names of his wife and son. Procedural History: The cases were jointly tried. The Court of First Instance dismissed the complaint in Civil Case No. 30823 and ordered a lien in favor of the Government for P100,000.00 on properties acquired by Katigbak in 1953, 1954, and 1955 in Civil Case No. 31080. The trial court found R.A. No. 1379 not penal in nature and that Katigbak was not compelled to testify against himself. Upon motion for reconsideration, the trial court reduced the lien to P80,000.00. The Katigbaks appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the cases to the Supreme Court due to the constitutional issue raised. The Petition: The Katigbaks attributed at least 18 errors to the court a quo, primarily arguing that R.A. No. 1379 is an ex post facto law because it imposes forfeiture penalties on acquisitions made before its enactment.
Issue(s)
Whether Republic Act No. 1379 is an ex post facto law and whether the forfeiture of properties acquired before its enactment is constitutionally permissible. Whether the Investigating Prosecutor should be held liable for damages.
Ruling
The judgment of the Court a quo, in so far as it pronounces the acquisitions of property by the appellants illegal in accordance with Republic Act No. 1379 and imposes a lien thereon in favor of the Government in the sum of P80,000.00, is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE, but is AFFIRMED in all other respects. No pronouncement as to costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of Republic Act No. 1379 being an ex post facto law and the constitutionality of forfeiting properties acquired before its enactment: The Supreme Court held that the forfeiture of property provided for in Republic Act No. 1379 is in the nature of a penalty. It is axiomatic that a law is ex post facto which makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law that was innocent when done, or which, assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right for something which was lawful when done. Therefore, the penalty of forfeiture prescribed by R.A. No. 1379 cannot be applied to acquisitions made prior to its passage without violating the constitutional provision condemning ex post facto laws or bills of attainder. The trial court's disposition of declaring certain acquisitions in 1953, 1954, and 1955 illegal under R.A. No. 1379, despite being made prior to the law's enactment, and imposing a lien thereon, was deemed constitutionally impermissible. This ruling overturned the trial court's initial finding that R.A. No. 1379 was not penal in nature. The Court cited its previous pronouncements in Cabal v. Kapunan, Jr. and Republic v. Agoncillo which declared forfeiture proceedings under R.A. No. 1379 to be penal in nature. The Court also noted that the principle that provisions of laws like the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act cannot be given retroactive effect is germane to this issue. On the issue of the Investigating Prosecutor's liability for damages: The Supreme Court found no proof of any intention to persecute or other ill motive underlying the institution of the forfeiture proceedings. The trial court had found that Alejandro Katigbak was assisted by competent counsel during the preliminary investigation. The mere fact that the preliminary investigation was terminated against the objection of Katigbak's counsel did not necessarily signify a denial of his right to such an investigation. Furthermore, the trial court's factual conclusion that no malice or bad faith attended the acts of the public respondents, and consequently no award of damages was proper, could not be reviewed by the Supreme Court absent any showing of a recognized exception.
Main Doctrine
The forfeiture of property provided for in Republic Act No. 1379 cannot be applied to acquisitions made prior to its passage without violating the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws.