Republic of the Philippines vs. Hon. Migrinio and Troadio Tecson [G.R. No. 89483.

August 30, 1990] FACTS: 1. AFP-Anti Graft Board under PCGG Chairman then Jovito Salonga ordered to investigate cases on alleged violations of the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019, as amended). 2. Private respondent Ret. Lt. Col. Tecson was required by the Board to submit his explanation on the alleged acquisition of wealth beyond his lawful income and with supporting documents. 3. Private respondent requested to the board and granted several postponement due to he was unable to produce his supporting evidence because his bookkeeper who was gone abroad. 4. The board submit a resolution to PCGG that the private respondent for the violation of RA3019 and RA1379 an Act for the Forfeiture of Unlawfully Acquired Property, but private respondent move to dismiss the case due to the following reasons: That the PCGG has no jurisdiction. That the RA1379 the prescription was inapplicable to his case. That he was already retired. 5. PCGG deemed the motion to dismiss for lack of merit, and private respondent directed to submit his counter-affidavit. 6. Private respondent filed a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction with the RTC Pasig docketed as Civil Case No. 57092 under Judge Migrino. Respondent alleged that he is not one of the subordinates contemplated in Executive Orders 1, 2, 14 and 14-A as the alleged illegal acts being imputed to him, that of alleged amassing wealth beyond his legal means while Finance Officer of the Philippine Constabulary, are acts of his own alone, not connected with his being a crony, business associate, etc. or subordinate as the petition does not allege so. Hence the PCGG has no jurisdiction to investigate him. 7. The court issued a temporary restraining order from processing the civil case. 8. PCGG elevated the case to Supreme Court on August 29, 1989. ISSUE: W/N Private Respondent may be investigated and prosecuted by the Board, an agency of the PCGG, for violation of RA 3019 and 1379. Whether or not private respondent acted as a subordinate under E.O. No.1 and related executive orders. HELD: No. 1. The Civil Case No. 57092 is NULLIFIED and set aside. 2. Respondent Judge Migrino is ordered to DISMISS the case. 3. The temporary restraining order was made PERMANENT. 4. The PCGG is ENJOINED from proceeding the investigation and prosecution of the private respondent Tecson. RATIO: 1. Applying the rule in statutory construction known as ejusdem generis, that is [w]here general words follow an enumeration of persons or things, by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same kind or class as those specifically mentioned. 2. The term subordinate as used in E.O. Nos. 1 and 2 would refer to one who enjoys a close association or relation with former Pres. Marcos and/or his wife, similar to the immediate family member, relative, and close associate in E.O. No. 1 and the close relative, business associate, dummy, agent, or nominee in E.O. No. 2. 3. The PCGG is ENJOINED from proceeding with the investigation and prosecution of private respondent, without prejudice to his investigation and prosecution by the appropriate prosecution agency.

Page 1 of 1