Supreme Court stops forfeiture cases vs Garcia's wife, children

MANILA, Philippines - The wife and three children of accused plunderer retired Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia avoided prosecution after the Supreme Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan had not acquired jurisdiction over their persons.

However, the SC decision only covers two forfeiture cases against Clarita Garcia and her sons Ian Carl, Juan Paulo and Timothy Mark.

In stopping the forfeiture cases, the SC said the Sandiganbayan sheriff failed to comply with the rule on substituted summons when he served the summons for Clarita and her children on Garcia, who is detained at the Philippine National Police Detention Center in Camp Crame, Quezon City.

Under the rule, the sheriff must show that defendants cannot be served promptly or it was impossible to promptly serve the summons within a reasonable time, the SC added.

The SC said the sheriff must show several attempts for personal service of at least three times on at least two different dates.

The sheriff must describe in the return of summons the facts and circumstances surrounding the attempted personal service, the SC added.

The substituted summons must have been served on a person of suitable age and discretion residing at defendant’s house, or on a competent person in charge of defendant’s office or regular place of business, the SC said.

The SC said the sheriff failed to comply with these 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,” read the SC decision.

“Hence, no valid substituted service of summons was made.”

For the forfeiture cases to proceed, the Sandiganbayan must serve another summons on Clarita Garcia and her three children to acquire jurisdiction over their persons.

The SC rejected the government’s argument that the petitioners can no longer question the improper service of substituted summons since they had already voluntarily appeared in court.

Their appearance before the Sandiganbayan 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, the SC added.

The first forfeiture case was filed against the Garcias on Oct. 29, 2004 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.

The Office of the Ombudsman also charged the Garcias with plunder, which is punishable under Republic Act 7080, 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 P303,272,005.99.

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

However, the SC said the plunder case did not absorb the forfeiture cases because forfeiture is civil in nature and plunder is a criminal case.

“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,” the SC said.

“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 added.

The SC decision was written by Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr.

Concurring were Associate Justices Minita Chico-Nazario, Teresita Leonardo-de Castro and Diosdado Peralta.

Associate Justice Antonio Carpio issued a separate concurring and dissenting opinion. – Edu Punay