TL;DR

The Supreme Court affirmed the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause against Spouses Miraflores for violations related to their Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs). This means the Ombudsman has sufficient grounds to proceed with a criminal investigation. The Court clarified that discrepancies in SALN declarations, such as undervaluing assets, failing to declare income sources, and inconsistencies in loan reporting, can lead to a finding of probable cause for graft and corrupt practices. Even if acquitted in an administrative case concerning the same SALNs, criminal prosecution is still possible due to different standards of evidence. Public officials must ensure meticulous accuracy and completeness in their SALNs to avoid legal repercussions.

When SALN Discrepancies Lead to Deeper Scrutiny: The Miraflores Case

Can minor inconsistencies in a public official’s SALN trigger a full-blown investigation and potential criminal charges? This question lies at the heart of the Miraflores v. Ombudsman case. Spouses Florencio and Ma. Lourdes Miraflores, public officials, faced scrutiny from the Ombudsman based on allegations that their declared wealth did not align with their legitimate income. The Field Investigation Office (FIO) pointed to discrepancies in their SALNs from 2001 to 2009, including undervalued properties, undeclared assets, and questionable loan declarations. The Ombudsman found probable cause to indict them for violations of Republic Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and Republic Act 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), alongside forfeiture proceedings under Republic Act 1379. The Mirafloreses challenged this finding, arguing grave abuse of discretion, violation of their right to be informed, and violation of their right to speedy disposition of cases.

The core of the Ombudsman’s case rested on the assertion that the Mirafloreses had amassed wealth disproportionate to their declared income. The FIO re-computed their net worth based on their SALNs, alleging a significant unexplained wealth of over five million pesos. Key issues raised included:

• Inconsistencies in using acquisition costs versus fair market value in property declarations.
• Failure to declare certain motor vehicles.
• Delayed declaration of shares of stock.
• Dubious sources for property acquisition.
• Unexplained increase in net worth relative to reported income.

The Mirafloreses countered that their income computation should include earnings from various assets and businesses, and that discrepancies were due to good faith and complexities in SALN preparation. They also argued that some vehicles were already given away and that the administrative case related to the same SALNs had been decided in their favor by the Court of Appeals. However, the Supreme Court sided with the Ombudsman, emphasizing the importance of accurate and truthful SALN declarations by public officials. The Court underscored the mandate of Section 8 of RA 6713, which states:

Section 8. Statements and Disclosure. – Public officials and employees have an obligation to accomplish and submit declarations under oath of, and the public has the right to know, their assets, liabilities, net worth and financial and business interests including those of their spouses and of unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households.

The Court found that the Ombudsman had sufficient basis for probable cause. Firstly, the Mirafloreses admitted to not declaring certain motor vehicles in their SALNs, offering a defense of gifting them to employees, which the Court deemed self-serving without proof of transfer of ownership. Secondly, their SALNs lacked any declaration of income from assets like fishponds and businesses, a clear violation of the requirement to disclose income sources. Thirdly, loan amounts declared in their SALNs were found to be inflated or repeatedly declared despite being fully paid, based on certifications from Pag-IBIG and GSIS. Lastly, the delayed declaration of shares of stock and the questionable source of funds for a property acquisition further supported the Ombudsman’s findings.

The Supreme Court dismissed the argument that the administrative exoneration should impact the criminal case, clarifying that administrative and criminal proceedings have different standards of proof. The Court reiterated the principle of non-interference with the Ombudsman’s investigatory and prosecutorial powers, as highlighted in Dichaves v. Office of the Ombudsman:

As a general rule, this Court does not interfere with the Office of the Ombudsman’s exercise of its constitutional mandate… [The Ombudsman] 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.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause, emphasizing that the role of the court at this stage is not to determine guilt or innocence, but to ascertain if there is sufficient basis to proceed with a criminal trial. The case serves as a significant reminder to public officials about the critical importance of diligently and truthfully completing their SALNs, as inaccuracies and omissions can lead to serious legal consequences.

FAQs

This case underscores the stringent requirements for SALN compliance and the broad powers of the Ombudsman in investigating potential violations. Public officials must exercise utmost diligence in preparing and submitting accurate SALNs to maintain public trust and avoid legal entanglements.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Miraflores v. Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 238103 & 238223, January 06, 2020