The anti-graft court Sandiganbayan has granted a request from a former Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) official and his wife to withdraw their pending appeal in a case involving unexplained wealth.
Settlement of Unexplained Wealth Case
The Sandiganbayan Fourth Division officially declared the appeal of Roberto Esquivel, the former director of the MMDA Sidewalk Clearing Operations Group, and his wife, Marissa Esquivel, as withdrawn. The court dismissed the case following the couple’s manifestation to pay P5,307,079.70, which represents the full cost of the judgment.
In its ruling, the anti-graft court stated that as the respondents-appellants were “indubitably no longer interested in pursuing their appeal,” there was “no longer any rhyme or reason to further maintain or otherwise carry forward the present appellate proceedings.”
Legal Basis and Case History
The legal action began with a petition for forfeiture filed by the Office of the Ombudsman. The petition was based on Republic Act No. 1379, a law establishing a prima facie presumption that assets were unlawfully acquired if a public officer accumulates wealth that is “manifestly out of proportion” to their salary and other lawful income.
As part of the proceedings, the court issued a writ of attachment against known properties belonging to the Esquivels. According to case records, this attachment remained in effect throughout the appeals process.
Jurisdictional Challenges
The path to this dismissal included a jurisdictional hurdle. On February 11, 2025, the defendants approached the Court of Appeals to withdraw their appeal and requested the termination of the case and the lifting of the property attachment after presenting proof of payment.
However, the Court of Appeals declined to act on the motion, ruling that it lacked the authority to do so. The court clarified that the Sandiganbayan holds exclusive jurisdiction over the case.
With the Sandiganbayan now dismissing the proceedings, the lifting of the existing writ of attachment on the couple’s properties may be a possible next step in the legal closure of the matter.
Frequently Asked Questions
What law was used to file the forfeiture petition?
The Office of the Ombudsman filed the petition based on Republic Act No. 1379, which addresses assets that are manifestly out of proportion to a public officer’s lawful income.
How much was the final judgment amount the couple agreed to pay?
The couple manifested to pay P5,307,079.70, which was the adjusted amount after a motion for reconsideration was partially granted by the Laguna court.
Why did the Court of Appeals refuse to dismiss the case in February 2025?
The Court of Appeals stated it could not act on the motion because the Sandiganbayan has exclusive jurisdiction over the case.
Do you believe that the forfeiture of assets is an effective deterrent against the accumulation of unexplained wealth in public office?
