This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-09-16 |
|||||
| In the earlier case of Cabal v. Kapunan,[31] however, we declared that forfeiture to the State of property of a public official or employee partakes of the nature of a penalty and proceedings for forfeiture of property, although technically civil in form, are deemed criminal or penal. We clarified therein that the doctrine laid down in Almeda v. Perez[32] that forfeiture proceedings are civil in nature applies purely to the procedural aspect of such proceedings and has no bearing on the substantial rights of the respondents therein. This ruling was reiterated in Katigbak v. Solicitor General,[33] where we held that the forfeiture of property provided for in RA 1379 is in the nature of a penalty. | |||||