The Supreme Court (SC) has reaffirmed that public officials may be stripped of assets unlawfully amassed while in office, ruling that wealth grossly disproportionate to a public officer’s legitimate income is presumed ill-gotten and may be forfeited even when registered under other people’s names.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez Dimaampao, the SC upheld the Sandiganbayan’s rulings ordering the forfeiture of over ₱150 million in properties and bank deposits traced to the late Lt. Gen. Jacinto C. Ligot, holding that the government had established the required prima facie presumption under the anti-unexplained wealth law.

“The SBN did not err in rendering its assailed rulings both in Civil Case No. 0197 and Civil Case No. SB-13-CVL-0001. Perforce, the consolidated Petitions must be denied for lack of merit,” the Court said.

FACTS AND ISSUE

The case stemmed from a lifestyle investigation by the Office of the Ombudsman into Ligot’s SALNs from 1982 to 2003, which revealed assets—both in the Philippines and the United States—valued at roughly ₱135 million, far exceeding his lawful income.

Two separate forfeiture petitions were subsequently filed: Civil Case No. 0197 (2005), which covered real and personal properties under the names of Ligot, his wife Erlinda, their children, his sister, and brother-in-law; and Civil Case No. SB-13-CVL-0001 (2013), which covered bank deposits and investment accounts held by the same individuals and by Erlinda’s cousin.

The Sandiganbayan ruled in favor of the government in both cases. In Civil Case No. 0197, it ordered the forfeiture of P102 million worth of properties, including houses in California, condominium units, agricultural lands, vehicles, and corporate interests. In the second case, the court ordered forfeiture of bank deposits and investments totaling P53.8 million, except those belonging to Edgardo Yambao, whom it found to have sufficient financial capacity.

Ligot, his heirs, family members, and associates elevated the cases to the SC arguing that the properties were not his, that some assets belonged to relatives with independent financial means, that bank secrecy laws were violated, that the government had split a single cause of action, and that the assets were not disproportionate to his lawful income.

The central issue brought before the SC was whether the Sandiganbayan erred in ordering the forfeiture of the properties and deposits by applying the prima facie presumption of unexplained wealth under Republic Act No. 1379, known as “An Act Declaring Forfeiture in Favor of the State Any Property Found to Have Been Unlawfully Acquired by Any Public Officer or Employee.”

THE RULING

The SC dismissed all petitions and fully affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s forfeiture rulings. It held that the Republic had proven all elements required for the presumption of unlawful acquisition under RA 1379: (1) Ligot was a public officer; (2) he had acquired considerable wealth during his tenure; and (3) the properties were manifestly out of proportion to his lawful income.

The Court detailed that from 1982 to 2004, Ligot’s total disposable income was only ₱9.15 million, but assets attributable to him exceeded ₱100 million.

“His acquisition exceeded his cash inflow by 1094.78% in 2001, 2898.77% in 2002, 3429.44% in 2003, and 7196.48% in 2004,” the Court noted.

The Court also affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s finding that several properties registered under Ligot’s relatives were in fact traceable to him, including two U.S. houses bought by Erlinda, two Paseo Parkview units paid through checks from the couple, an Essensa unit transferred to Yambao without proof of legitimate purchase, and agricultural lands in Bukidnon attributed to their children despite their lack of capacity.

On the issue of bank secrecy, the Court ruled that proceedings involving unexplained wealth fall within recognized exceptions under RA 1405 and, as earlier held in Ligot v. Sandiganbayan, foreign-denominated accounts in the case were not protected by RA 6426 because the financial institution involved was not a foreign currency deposit unit.

“The prima facie presumption under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1379 arises and the foregoing properties are deemed forfeitable for being unlawfully acquired,” the Court reiterated.

Follow Tan Briones & Associates on LinkedIn for more legal updates and law-related articles.