868 Phil. 36
LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:
a) | Joint Resolution[6] dated August 12, 2016 finding probable cause against Spouses Florencio Tumbocon Miraflores (Florencio) and Maria Lourdes Martin Miraflores (Lourdes; collectively, petitioners) for nine (9) counts and three (3) counts, respectively, of violation of Section 7 of RA 3019 in relation to Section 8 of RA 6713 and for forfeiture of unlawfully acquired properties under RA 1379;[7] and |
b) | Joint Order[8] dated October 2, 2017 affirming with modification such finding of probable cause but reducing on ground of prescription the counts of violation of Section 7 of RA 3019, in relation to Section 8 of RA 6713 against Florencio from nine (9) to four (4). |
- From the declarations in their 2001-2009 SALNs, the total change in respondent's net worth xxx amounted to P4,665,938.02, while their estimated total compensation xxx income for the same years amounted to P4,920,519.00 where P3,799,170.00 is Florencio's estimated compensation, while Pl,121,349.00 is the estimated compensation of Lourdes;
- The computation of the real properties in their 2001 to 2009 SALNs xxx, shows that the acquisition costs were not consistently used as there were times that the fair market value of the properties [was] adopted/added; hence the actual value spent to acquire the properties were not declared. The inconsistencies therefor affected the actual [Net worth] of respondents, which upon re-computation xxx amounted to P10,237,518.02, not P4,665,938.02;
xxxx- Using respondents' recomputed net worth of P10,237,518.02 less their known income of P4,920,519.00, there is a total unexplained wealth of P5,316,999.02. This amount, however, does not take into account the expenses incurred by respondents for their numerous travels abroad and other living expenses. The amount of unexplained wealth was taken from the acquisition costs of assets and liabilities declared in the 2001 to 2009 SALN;
- Respondents either overvalued, undervalued or did not declare some of the properties registered under their names, such as: (a) the residential land (with improvement) located in Quezon City, which was acquired in 2000 and declared in the 2001 SALN with acquisition cost of only P242,620.00 and P50,000.00 for improvement. However, based on the annotations at the back of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 210613 and Tax Declaration No. D-125-01482, the property costs [P1,500,000.00]; (b) the Mitsubishi Pajero and Toyota Fortuner were undervalued by P90,200.00 and P118,000.00, respectively, while the Toyota Hi-Ace GL Grandia was overvalued by P45,000.00; and (c) the Isuzu Elf, Toyota Pick-up, Nissan Safari Wagon and Kawasaki Motorcycle with a total acquisition cost of P708,400.00, were not declared; ·
- Although Lourdes acquired shares of stocks from the Rural Bank of Ibajay, Inc. [(RBII)] in 1989, the value of said shares of stocks amounting to P6,497,200.00 was only declared in their 2008 and 2009 SALNs; and
- The amounts of certain liabilities were either overstated or still declared despite having been fully paid, such as the housing loan and multi-purpose loan (MPL) from Pag I.B.I.G. Fund Iloilo Branch and the Ember Salary Loan from the Government Insurance System (GSIS).
In denying the accusations against them, respondents asserted that the computation of their total income should be P12,132,519.00, an amount which is proportional to the alleged increase in their net worth of P10,237,518.02 from 2001 to 2009.The same Joint Resolution shows a summary of petitioner's Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net worth (SALNs) for 2001-2009,[11]. viz:
Respondents averred that in the computation of their incomes, complaint disregarded their incomes from their assets, i.e. fish ponds, farm and coconut lands, and financial interests in their rural banking business that were consistently declared in. their SALNs. Also disregarded were the incomes of their adult children. who started to earn in 2009 and other remunerations, including per diems, representation and transportation allowances (RATA) and other fees, all constitute their legitimate sources of funds and may cover the family expenses. Their loan of almost P20,000,000.00 was incurred to subsidize their living and enable them to acquire the properties added to their assets from 2001 to 2009.
To show that they declared all their properties, respondents alleged that they included in their SALNs properties which they inherited but which are still undistributed and co-owned with the other heirs. The costs of some assets were also declared based on the amount stated in the deeds of sale and other costs incurred in acquiring such assets, such as loan interest, discount, accessories, insurance, etc., and the mode by which such assets were acquired, e.g. by loan.
Respondents further explained that they did not declare in their 2001 to 2009 SALNs the Nissan Safari Wagon, Mazda Pick-up (alleged in the complaint as Toyota Pick-up) and Kawasaki motorcycle all registered in their names, as they are already owned, used and given to persons who had served their family for many years. The sworn statements of Allen S. Quimpo (Quimpo), Efren Trinidad (Trinidad) and Antonio M. Pamisan (Pamisan) were submitted in support of their claim.
Additionally, to show that their accumulated wealth from 2001 to 2009 is not disproportionate to their sources of income/funds, respondents presented a computation of their net worth, income and liabilities from 2004 to 2013. Allegedly, while their SALNs did not provide every minute detail of information, they, however, provided all necessary data following the detailed and complete requirement of RA 6713. As the SALNs were prepared in good faith, the difficulty in determining their net worth and income should not operate to disregard the legal income from them. [10]
ASSETS | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 |
Real Properties | |||||
Riceland in Regador, Ibajay, Aklan | P1,100,000.00 | P1,200,000.00 | P1,300,000.00 | P1,300,000.00 | P1,300,000.00 |
Cocoland in Regador, Ibajay, Aklan | 2,200,000.00 | 2,300,000.00 | 2,400,000.00 | 2,400,000.00 | 2,400,000.00 plus 10,000.00 |
Residential Lot in Poblacion Ibajay, Aklan | 850,000.00 | 3,000,000.00 | 3,000,000.00 | 3,000,000.00 | 3,000,000.00 plus 2,000,000.00 |
Residential Lot in Quezon City | 691,280.00 | 891,280.00 | 2,500,000.00 | 2,500,000.00 | 2,500,000.00 |
Fishpond in Capiz | 5,000,000.00 | 5,000,000.00 | 5,500,000.00 | 5,500,000.00 | 5,500,000.00 plus 90,000.00 |
Total | P9,841,280.00 *Current Fair Market Value | P12,391,280.00 *Current Fair Market Value | P14,700,000.00 *Current Fair Market Value | P14,700,000.00 *Current Fair Market Value | P16,800,000.00 *Current Fair Market Value & Acquisition Cost |
Personal and other Properties | |||||
Pick up (Mazda) | P450,000.00 | P450,000.00 | P450,000.00 | P450,000.00 | |
Automobile | 600,000.00 | 600,000.00 | 600,000.00 | 600,000.00 | 600,000.00 |
Jewelries | 300,000.00 | 400,000.00 | 500,000.00 | 500,000.00 | 500,000.00 |
Books | 50,000.00 | 55,000.00 | 60,000.00 | 60,000.00 | 60,000.00 |
Clothes/ Appliances | 330,000.00 | 400,000.00 | 400,000.00 | 400,000.00 | 400,000.00 |
Bank Deposits/On Hand | 600,000.00 | 700,000.00 | 900,000.00 | 900,000.00 | 500,000.00 |
Pick-up (Nissan) | 900,000.00 | ||||
Automobile (Mazda) | 780,000.00 | ||||
Total | P3,630,000.00 | P3,905,000.00 | P4,210,000.00 | P4,210,000.00 | P5,040,000.00 |
TOTAL ASSETS | P13,471,280.00 | P16,296,280.00 | P18,910,000.00 | P18,910,000.00 | P21,840,000.00 |
LIABILITIES | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 20015 |
Housing Loan (Pag-Ibig) | P1,050,754.02 | P900,000.00 | P700,000.00 | P700,000.00 | P560,000.00 |
Housing Loan | 2,200,000.00 | 2,000,000.00 (Equitable Bank ) | 1,650,000.00 | 1,650,000.00 | 1,820,759.59 |
Car Loan | 600,000.00 | 300,000.00 | 200,000.00 | 200,000.00 | 314,628.00 (Mazda) |
GSIS (Salary and Policy ) | 170,000.00 | 120,000.00 | 80,000.00 | 80,000.00 | 80,000.00 |
Prvate Loans | 1,300,000.00 | 1,000,000.00 | 2,100,000.00 | 2,100,000.00 | 5,000,000.00 |
Multi-purpose Loan (Pag-Ibig) | 45,000.00 | 45,000.00 | 45,000.00 | ||
TOTAL LIABILITIES | P4,260,754.02 | P4,320,000.00 | P4,775,000.00 | P4,775,000.00 | P7,820,387.59 |
NETWORTH | P8,850,525.98 | P11,976,280.00 | P14,135,000.00 | P14,135,000.00 | P14,019,612.41[12] |
ASSETS | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 |
Real Properties | ||||
Riceland in Regador Ibajay, Aklan | P1,600,000.00 | P1,600,000.00 | P1,600,000.00 | P1,600,000.00 |
Cocoland in Regador, Ibajay, Aklan | 2,700,000.00 | P3,600,000.00 | 2,700,000.00 | 2,700,000.00 |
Residential Lot in Poblacion Ibajay, Aklan | 3,500,000.00 plus 2,000,000.00 plus 5,000,000.00 | 6,000,000.00 | 3,500,000.00 | 3,500,000.00 |
Residential Lot in Quezon City | 5,000,000.00 plus 4,500,000.00 plus 300,000.00 | 5,300,000.00 | 5,000,000.00 plus 4,800,000.00 | 5,000,000.00 plus 4,800,000.00 |
Fishpond in Capiz | 7,250,000.00 plus 150,000.00 | 7,350,000.00 | 7,200,000.00 | 7,200,000.00 |
Residential Property in Quezon City | 9,000,000.00 | 9,000,000.00 | ||
Total | P27,750,000.00 *Cuurent Fair Market Value & Acquition Cost | P23,250,000.00 *Cuurent Fair Market Value | P13,800,000.00 | |
Personal and other Properties | ||||
Automobile | 600,000.00 | 600,000.00 | ||
Stocks (Equitypaid) | 6,497,200.00 | 6,497,200.00 | ||
Deposits/advanced payments on rentals | 180,000.00 | 180,000.00 | ||
Furniture, antiques | 600,000.00 | 600,000.00 | ||
Jewelry | 870,000.00 | 700,000.00 | 990,000.00 | 990,000.00 |
Books | 60,000.00 | 60,000.00 | ||
Clothes/Appliances | 500,000.00 | 500,000.00 | ||
Bank Deposits/On Hand | 550,000.00 | 550,000.00 | 770,000.00 | 770,000.00 |
Pajero Van | 1,300,000.00 | 1,300,000.00 | ||
Pick-up (Nissan) | 900,000.00 | 900,000.00 | 900,000.00 | 900,000.00 |
Automobile (Mazda) | 780,000.00 | 780,000.00 | ||
Toyota Fortuner Plate No. ZDE457 | 1,250,00.00 | 1,250,00.00 | 1,250,00.00 | 1,250,00.00 |
Toyota Hi Ace Grandia Plate No. ZLZ439 | 1,465,000.00 | 1,465,000.00 | 1,465,000.00 | |
Mitsubishi Pajero Van Plate No. WHN 852 | 1,300,000.00 | 1,300,000.00 | ||
Mazda Plate No. ZAB 675 | 780,000.00 | 780,000.00 | ||
Honda Civic Plate No. UHG 852 | 600,000.00 | 600,000.00 | ||
Mitsubishi Pajero Plate No. ZNZ 924 | 2,608,000.00 | 2,608,000.00 | ||
Others | 60,000.00 | 60,000.00 | ||
Total | P6,640,000.00 | P8,275,000.00 | P18,540,200.00 | |
TOTAL ASSETS | P34,390,000.00 | P31,525,000.00 | P31,800,200.00 | P32,340,200.00 |
LIABILITIES | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 |
Housing Loan (Pag-Ibig) | 560,000.00 | |||
Housing Loan | 1,820,759.59 | 3,000,000.00 (BPI) | 2,817,624.00 (BPI) | |
Personal Loan | 8,000,000.00 | 4,000,000.00 | ||
Bank Loans | 4,283,736.00 | |||
Car Loan (Mazda) | 314,628.00 | 314,628.00 | ||
GSIS Loan (Salary and Policy ) | 45,000.00 | 45,000.00 | ||
Private Loans | 6,000,000.00 | 8,000,000.00 | ||
Multi-purpose Loan (Pag-Ibig) | 45,000.00 | 45,000.00 | ||
Car Loan (Hi-Ace) | 879,000.00 | |||
RCBC Grandia Car Loan | 483,744.00 | |||
RCBC Pajero Car Loan | 982,368.00 | |||
UCPB Housing Loan | 10,000,000.00 | |||
TOTAL LIABILITIES | P8,785,387.59 | P12,283,628.00 | P18,283,736.00 | |
NETWORTH | P25,604,612.41 | P19,241,372.00 | 19,516,464.00 | P14,056,464.00 [13] |
Year | Networth | Change in Networth | Known Income | Explain/Unexplained Wealth |
2001 | -P288,134.02 | 0.00 | P402,578.00 | -P402,578.00 |
2002 | 1,595,000.00 | 1,883,134.02 | 446,063.00 | 1,437,163.00 |
2003 | 1,834,000.00 | 239,000.00 | 438,163.00 | -199,163.00 |
2004 | 1,534,000.00 | -300,000.00 | 412,366.00 | -712,366.00 |
2005 | -723,267.59 | -2,257,267.59 | 420,000.00 | -2677,267.59 |
2006 | 5,679,732.41 | 6,403,000.00 | 420,000.00 | 5,983,000.00 |
2007 | 3,771,492.00 | -1908,240.41 | 862,936.00 | 2,544,517.41 |
2008 | 6,999,384.00 | 3,227,892.00 | 862,936.00 | 2,364,864.00 |
2009 | 9,949,384.00 | 2,950,000.00 | 882,136.00 | 2,067,864.00 |
Total | P10,237,518.02 | P4,920,519.00 | P5,316,999.02 [15] |
In their subsequent motion for reconsideration, petitioners basically averred:
- By declaring amounts higher or lower than the actual costs (Acquisition Costs) of their real and personal properties, petitioners violated the rule on submission of complete and accurate SALNs.
- As for the undeclared motor vehicles, petitioners admitted having bought the same, albeit they conveniently claimed that they had given these motor vehicles to their long-time employees as accommodation or reward. This is at best self-serving.
- Regarding Lourdes' RBII shareholdings, she held ownership thereof since 1989 and yet she failed to declare their value in her very first 2007 SALN. She indicated it only in her subsequent 2008 SALN.
- The alleged source for the purchase of petitioners' family home in Quezon City appeared to be dubious i.e. HSBC remittances from Florencio's siblings. No documents were presented to prove Florencio's relationship with the supposed sponsors and the latter's financial capacity.
- The increase in petitioners' net worth was not supported by their reported incomes/compensations.
The OMB committed grave abuse of discretion when it adopted as bases of finding probable cause the FIO's erroneous and unsubstantiated computation of their net worth, thus, violating their right to be informed of the charges against them.In its Comment ,[21] the OMB counters:
OMB committed grave abuse of discretion when it failed to accord due recognition to the Court of Appeals' Decision dated November 17, 2017 in CA-G.R. SP No.149592 clearing them of any administrative liability pertaining to the same SALNs subject of the present case.
The OMB committed grave abuse of discretion when it resolved the cases only after eight (8) long years since the investigation commenced in 2010, thus, violating their right to speedy disposition of the cases against them.
As a general rule, this Court does not interfere with the Office of the Ombudsman's exercise of its constitutional mandate. Both the Constitution and Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989) give the Ombudsman wide latitude to act on criminal complaints against public officials and government employees. The rule on non-interference is based on the "respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman[.]"Peralta, C.J., Caguioa, and Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur
An independent constitutional body, the Office of the Ombudsman is "beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people [,] and [is] the preserver of the integrity of the public service." Thus, it has the sole power to determine whether there is probable cause to warrant the filing of a criminal case against an accused. This function is executive in nature.
The executive determination of probable cause is a highly factual matter. It requires probing into the "existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he [or she] was prosecuted."
The Office of the Ombudsman is armed with the power to investigate. It is, therefore, in a better position to assess the strengths or weaknesses of the evidence on hand needed to make a finding of probable cause. As this Court is not a trier of facts, we defer to the sound judgment of the Ombudsman.
Practicality also leads this Court to exercise restraint in interfering with the Office of the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause. Republic v. Ombudsman Desierto explains:As in Dichaves,[52] there is here no showing that the OMB gravely abused its discretion in finding probable cause against petitioners for violation of Section 7 of RA 3019, in relation to Section 8 of RA 6713 and for forfeiture of unlawfully acquired properties under RA 1379. The Court, therefore, adheres to the rule of judicial restraint or non-interference with the OM B's exercise of its constitutional investigative power and its consequent finding of probable cause.[T]he functions of the courts will be grievously hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed before it, in much the same way that the courts would be extremely swamped if they could be compelled to review the exercise of discretion on the part of the fiscals or prosecuting attorneys each time they decide to file an information in court or dismiss a complaint by a private complaint.Invoking an exception to the rule on non-interference, petitioner alleges that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion. According to him: (a) he was not given the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, (b) the Ombudsman considered pieces of evidence not presented during the preliminary investigation, and (c) there is no probable cause to charge him with plunder.
While, indeed, this Court may step in if the public prosecutor gravely abused its discretion in acting on the case, such grave abuse must be substantiated, not merely alleged. In Casing v. Hon. Ombudsman, et al.:Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. The Ombudsman's exercise of power must have been done in an arbitrary or despotic manner - which must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law - in order to exceptionally warrant judicial intervention.
Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED and the Joint Resolution dated August 12, 2016 and Joint Order dated October 2, 2017, in Case Nos. OMB-V-C-15-0115 and OMB-V-F-15-0001, AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
(A) | Statements of Assets and Liabilities and Financial Disclosure. - All public officials and employees, except those who serve in an honorary capacity, laborers and casual or temporary workers, shall file under oath their Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and a Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections and those of their spouses and unmarried children under eighteen ( 18) years of age living in their households. |
(a) | real property, its improvements, acquisition costs, assessed value and current fair market value; |
(b) | personal property and acquisition cost; |
(c) | all other assets such as investments, cash on hand or in banks, stocks, bonds, and the like; |
(d) | liabilities, and; |
(e) | all business interests and financial connections. |
The documents must be filed: | |
(a) | within thirty (30) days after assumption of office; |
(b) | on or before April 30, of every year thereafter; and |
(c) | within thirty (30) days after separation from the service. |