TL;DR

The Supreme Court partially reversed the Ombudsman’s decision, ordering the Ombudsman to proceed with a forfeiture case against a Bureau of Customs employee. While criminal charges related to non-filing and false declarations in Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs) were dismissed due to prescription or lack of sufficient grounds, the Court found merit in pursuing the forfeiture of properties that appeared disproportionate to the employee’s lawful income. This ruling underscores that public officials can be held accountable for unexplained wealth acquired during their tenure, even if some charges are dismissed on technicalities, reinforcing the importance of transparent asset declaration and public trust.

When Your Salary Doesn’t Match Your Shopping Spree: Unmasking Unexplained Wealth in Public Service

Can a public servant’s lifestyle outpace their legitimate earnings without raising legal red flags? This is the core question in the case of Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service v. Office of the Ombudsman and Miriam R. Casayuran. The Department of Finance (DOF), through its Revenue Integrity Protection Service (RIPS), filed complaints against Miriam Casayuran, a Customs Operations Officer, alleging she amassed wealth far exceeding her government salary. The DOF-RIPS pointed to several properties acquired by Casayuran – a condominium, a house and lot, and multiple vehicles – questioning how these acquisitions aligned with her declared income in her SALNs. The Ombudsman, however, dismissed the complaints, finding insufficient evidence for criminal and administrative liability, and for forfeiture of assets. This prompted the DOF-RIPS to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court, challenging the Ombudsman’s dismissal and seeking to hold Casayuran accountable for potential unexplained wealth.

The Supreme Court meticulously reviewed the Ombudsman’s findings and the evidence presented by the DOF-RIPS. The charges against Casayuran were multifaceted, encompassing criminal violations for failing to file SALNs and for making false declarations, administrative charges for grave misconduct and dishonesty, and a forfeiture case aimed at seizing ill-gotten wealth. The Court agreed with the Ombudsman that the criminal charges for non-filing of SALNs under Republic Act No. 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, had prescribed. Citing Del Rosario v. People, the Court reiterated that the prescriptive period for SALN violations is eight years, running from the date of the offense, not discovery, as SALNs are public documents. Since the complaint was filed more than eight years after the non-filing, this charge was deemed time-barred.

Regarding the charges of falsification under Articles 171 and 183 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) for allegedly untruthful statements in her SALNs, the Supreme Court also sided with the Ombudsman’s dismissal. Article 171 requires that a public officer must have ‘taken advantage of his official position’ to commit falsification. The Court reasoned that merely failing to declare certain properties in a SALN, while a violation, does not inherently equate to abusing one’s position as Customs Operations Officer for falsification purposes. Furthermore, prosecuting under Article 183, which pertains to perjury, was deemed improper because Republic Act No. 6713 already provides a specific penalty for SALN violations, and it is less severe than penalties under other laws for the same act, as stipulated in Section 11 of RA 6713.

However, the Supreme Court parted ways with the Ombudsman concerning the forfeiture case under Republic Act No. 1379, the law governing forfeiture of unlawfully acquired property by public officers. This law establishes a presumption:

Section 2. Filing of petition. – Whenever any public officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency an amount of property which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property, said property shall be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired.

The Court scrutinized Casayuran’s declared income against her property acquisitions. While the Ombudsman attempted to justify Casayuran’s purchases by citing salary increases and loans, the Supreme Court found these explanations insufficient. Analyzing the financial data presented by DOF-RIPS, the Court highlighted discrepancies. For instance, in 1996, Casayuran purchased a condominium with a monthly salary that appeared inadequate to cover the monthly installments. Similarly, vehicle purchases in subsequent years, like the Toyota Revo and Nissan Sentra, seemed financially strained given her income and existing liabilities. The acquisition of a Nissan X-Trail in 2010, a more expensive vehicle, further amplified these concerns, especially considering her numerous outstanding loans and financial obligations declared in her SALNs.

The Court emphasized that the Ombudsman should not have dismissed the forfeiture case based on speculative justifications. Casayuran herself did not present evidence to demonstrate that her lawful income adequately explained her acquired wealth. The burden of proof in forfeiture cases under R.A. 1379 shifts to the public officer to demonstrate the lawful acquisition of questioned properties once a prima facie case of disproportionate wealth is established. Because the DOF-RIPS presented sufficient evidence to suggest that Casayuran’s assets were manifestly disproportionate to her lawful income, the Supreme Court concluded that the Ombudsman erred in dismissing the forfeiture charge. The Court ordered the Ombudsman to file the necessary petition for forfeiture before the proper court, allowing for a full judicial determination of whether Casayuran’s properties were indeed unlawfully acquired.

This decision reinforces the critical role of SALNs in promoting transparency and accountability in public service. While technicalities like prescription can shield public officials from certain criminal charges, the state retains the power to pursue forfeiture of assets that cannot be legitimately explained by their declared income. The ruling serves as a reminder that public office is a public trust, and unexplained wealth acquired during incumbency can be subject to forfeiture, ensuring that public servants are held to a high standard of financial accountability.

FAQs

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: DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE-REVENUE INTEGRITY PROTECTION SERVICE VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND MIRIAM R. CASAYURAN, G.R. No. 240137, September 09, 2020