Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 222 views

    Almeda V Perez

    Uploaded by

    Socrates Jerome De Guzman
    The Supreme Court denied Almeda's petition, ruling that: 1) Proceedings under the Anti-Graft Law are civil in nature rather than criminal, as the law provides for forfeiture of illegally acquired property rather than criminal penalties. 2) As a civil proceeding, amendments to the petition may be made without a new preliminary investigation or the respondent's consent, as in ordinary civil cases. 3) Specifically, the Court found the Anti-Graft Law allows amendments to include newly discovered acquisitions without another investigation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Almeda V Perez

    Uploaded by

    Socrates Jerome De Guzman
    222 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court denied Almeda's petition, ruling that: 1) Proceedings under the Anti-Graft Law are civil in nature rather than criminal, as the law provides for forfeiture of illegally acquired property rather than criminal penalties. 2) As a civil proceeding, amendments to the petition may be made without a new preliminary investigation or the respondent's consent, as in ordinary civil cases. 3) Specifically, the Court found the Anti-Graft Law allows amendments to include newly discovered acquisitions without another investigation.

    Original Description:

    Criminal Law 2 | Malfeasance and Misfeasance

    Original Title

    Almeda v Perez

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court denied Almeda's petition, ruling that: 1) Proceedings under the Anti-Graft Law are civil in nature rather than criminal, as the law provides for forfeiture of illegally acquired property rather than criminal penalties. 2) As a civil proceeding, amendments to the petition may be made without a new preliminary investigation or the respondent's consent, as in ordinary civil cases. 3) Specifically, the Court found the Anti-Graft Law allows amendments to include newly discovered acquisitions without another investigation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    222 views2 pages

    Almeda V Perez

    Uploaded by

    Socrates Jerome De Guzman
    The Supreme Court denied Almeda's petition, ruling that: 1) Proceedings under the Anti-Graft Law are civil in nature rather than criminal, as the law provides for forfeiture of illegally acquired property rather than criminal penalties. 2) As a civil proceeding, amendments to the petition may be made without a new preliminary investigation or the respondent's consent, as in ordinary civil cases. 3) Specifically, the Court found the Anti-Graft Law allows amendments to include newly discovered acquisitions without another investigation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Almeda, Sr. v.

    Perez
    30 Aug 1962 – Justice Labrador

    Almeda was charged with the violation of the Anti-Graft law so a petition for forfeiture was instituted.
    During the course of the proceedings, a motion to amend the petition for forfeiture was requested by
    the SolGen which the CFI granted. Almeda appealed stating that forfeiture proceedings are criminal in
    nature and that amendments require new investigations and consent of respondents. SC denied the
    petition.

    FACTS
     Petition seeking to set aside orders of respondent Judge Perez of the CFI of Manila allowing the
    filing of an amended petition for forfeiture against petitioners and denying the motion for
    reconsideration
     In 1961, Villegas and Mendoza filed a complaint with the Secretary of Justice charging Mariano
    Almeda Sr. with having acquired, during his incumbency as Asst. Director of NBI, cash and
    properties in the total amount of P121,407.98 out of proportion to his lawful income, and
    therefore violating RA 1379 (Anti-Graft Law)
     A preliminary investigation by a committee designated by the Secretary concluded that there is
    reasonable ground to believe that Almeda Sr. acquired properties out of proportion to his salary
    and other lawful income from 1950 to 1959
     SolGen then filed with the CFI Manila a petition for forfeiture against Almeda Sr. charging him
    with having committed graft while engaged in the performance of his official duties
    o His wife was included as co-respondent in her capacity as wife and co-owner of conjugal
    properties
     The case was set for hearing but the SolGen filed a “Motion for Leave to Amend Petition for
    Forfeiture” which Judge Perez granted
    o CFI found no merit in petitioners’ contentions and ordered the filing of the second
    amended petition without including Mariano Almeda Jr
    o SolGen then filed the amended petition for forfeiture, adding other counts and items of
    alleged unlawful acquisitions and disbursements
     Increased cash allegedly received by Almeda Sr. from unexplained sources to
    P208, 682.45 as against his salary of P59, 860.97
     Petitioners’ objections to the amendment
    o They had not been given a new preliminary investigation with respect to the new
    charges
     RA 1379 is penal in substance and effect, hence presentation of amended
    petition without the benefit of a previous preliminary investigation cannot be
    allowed
    o Proceeding under RA 1379 being criminal in nature, the petition may not be amended
    without their consent
    o Amendment would have the effect of presenting a charge within 1 year from the date of
    a general election which is not allowed

    RULING: Petition DENIED

    ISSUE
    1) W/N RA 1379 is penal in substance and effect? - NO
     A study of the provisions of Republic Act No. 1379 readily discloses that the proceeding for
    forfeiture is civil in nature and not criminal
    o Proceedings under RA 1379 does not terminate in the imposition of a penalty but merely
    in the forfeiture of the properties illegally acquired in favor of the state
    o Procedure outlined in the law leading to forfeiture is that provided for in a civil action.
    Thus, there is a petition (Sec. 3), then an answer (Sec. 4), and lastly, a hearing.
    o Even if the preliminary investigation required prior to the filing of the petition, in
    accordance with Sec. 2 of the Act, is similar to a preliminary investigation in a criminal
    case, but the other steps in the proceedings are those for civil proceedings, it stands to
    reason that the proceeding is not criminal
    o If it were a criminal proceeding, there would have been, after a preliminary investigation,
    a reading of information, a plea of guilty or not guilty, and a trial thereafter, with the
    publication of the judgement in the presence of the defendant. But these proceedings
    are not provided for in RA 1379
     Section 12 of the law also does not make it penal in substance.
    o It provides a penalty to the public officer, but said penalty is against the employee or
    officer for the transfer or conveyance of any unlawfully acquired properties.
    o The law penalizes an officer for transferring or conveying properties unlawfully acquired
    but does not do so for making the unlawful acquisition; it merely imposes the penalty of
    forfeiture of the properties unlawfully acquired.
     Having the nature of a civil proceeding, amendment of charges or the petition for forfeiture may
    be made as in ordinary civil actions; i.e., the amendments may be made before the trial or in the
    course of the trial without need for another investigation.
    o Thus, amendments setting forth newly discovered acquisitions may be inserted in the
    petition without obtaining the consent of the respondent

    You might also like