P5.3-million forfeiture case junked after respondents agree to return amount

The Sandiganbayan dismissed a P5.3-million forfeiture case against former government officials after the respondents agreed to return the amount to the government. 

In a four-page Resolution, the anti-graft court said former Metro Manila Development Authority Sidewalk Clearing Operations Group director Roberto Esquivel and former Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) project development officer Marissa Esquivel agreed to return the P5.3 million as ordered by the San Pedro, Laguna, Regional Trial Court Branch 31 by withdrawing their appeal filed before the Court of Appeals (CA). 

“From the preceding narration of relevant antecedent facts and proceedings after the rendition of the judgment by the trial court, it is self-evident that respondents-appellants have subsequently but firmly decided to accept in its entirety the adverse judgment of the trial court against them finding that they have an unexplained wealth in the total amount of P5.3 million which should be forfeited in favor of petitioner­ appellee Republic of the Philippines,” the Sandiganbayan said.

“Moreover, in various submissions filed with both the trial court and the Court of Appeals, respondents-appellants had also unequivocally expressed their intent and willingness to settle such liability, and for that reason, they are no longer interested in pursuing their appeal, and are, in fact, moving to withdraw the same,” the Sandiganbayan added.

The anti-graft court, however, underscored that the respondents should have filed their appeal before the Sandiganbayan, not the Court of Appeals, which does not have a jurisdiction of the civil forfeiture cases. 

“This Court affirms that it has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the subject forfeiture case against the respondents-appellants which was decided adversely against them by the Regional Trial Court of the City of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 31. The Sandiganbayan is the court properly vested with authority under the law to act on and resolve respondents-appellants' pending Motion to Withdraw the Appeal, and as such, it would now proceed to do so,” it said.

“It appearing that respondents-appellants, through various submissions filed with both the trial court and the Court of Appeals are indubitably no longer interested in pursuing their appeal, and considering further that they have, in fact, already decided to just settle or pay their liability under the trial court's judgment representing the value of their assets or properties which were declared as unlawfully acquired and ordered forfeited, there is no longer any rhyme or reason to further maintain or otherwise carry forward the resent appellate proceedings before the Sandiganbayan,” it added. — BM, GMA News