The Sandiganbayan has granted the motion of a former Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) official and his wife to withdraw their appeal in a P5.3-million forfeiture case, effectively accepting an earlier court ruling that declared the amount as unexplained wealth.

In a resolution dated April 21, the anti-graft court’s Fourth Division said Roberto Punzal Esquivel and his wife, Marissa Crisostomo Esquivel, were no longer interested in pursuing their appeal and had instead opted to pay the amount corresponding to assets previously adjudged as unlawfully acquired.

“All told, 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,” the court said.

“It appearing that respondents-appellants, through various submissions filed with both the RTC of the City of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 31, 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 in favor of petitioner-appellee Republic of the Philippines pursuant to R.A. No. 1379, there is no longer any rhyme or reason to further maintain or otherwise carry forward present appellate proceedings before the Sandiganbayan.”

The case stemmed from a civil forfeiture complaint filed by the Office of the Ombudsman under Republic Act No. 1379, which allows the State to recover properties deemed disproportionate to a public official’s lawful income.

Records showed that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 31 had earlier ruled against the couple, declaring a total of P5,307,079.70 as unexplained wealth subject to forfeiture in favor of the government.

“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 Five Million Three Hundred Seven Thousand and Seventy Nine Pesos and Seventy Centavos (P5,307,079.70), which should be forfeited in favor of petitioner-appellee Republic of the Philippines,” the court said.

Instead of pursuing further legal remedies, the respondents filed a motion to withdraw their appeal, manifesting their intent to settle the amount and comply with the trial court’s ruling.

On May 19, 2025, the Court of Appeals (CA), Eleventh Division, rendered a decision declaring that it lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of the appeal, emphasizing that exclusive appellate jurisdiction over civil forfeiture cases within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts lies with the Sandiganbayan. Accordingly, it denied the respondents-appellants’ Motion to Withdraw the Appeal and directed that the case records be remanded to the trial court for proper transmittal to the Sandiganbayan.

On June 18, 2025, the respondents-appellants filed a manifestation with motion before the trial court reiterating the statements in their earlier Motion to Withdraw the Appeal filed with the CA.

“This time, they asked the trial court to allow them to settle or pay the entire amount adjudged against them, and after paying the same, for the trial court to lift the writ of attachment issued against their properties and order their release. Respondents-appellants further asked the trial court to forego the transmittal of the case records to the Sandiganbayan after paying their liability under the judgment,” the court said.

On February 18, 2026, respondents-appellants once more filed with the trial court a manifestation with motion reiterating their prior submission and expressly stating that they were no longer interested in appealing their case.

On April 7, 2026, the trial court issued an order denying the reiterative motion, holding that it had no jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought and that its duty and only remaining recourse was to transmit the case records to the Sandiganbayan pursuant to the directive of the CA.

“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 court said.