ALBUERA Mayor Rolan “Kerwin” Espinosa lost multimillion-peso worth of assets this year, despite his acquittal on criminal drug charges in June 2023 and the dismissal of another drug case in 2024.
The answer lies in a legal distinction many find counterintuitive: civil forfeiture operates separately from criminal prosecution.
Laurefel Gabales, chief of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency’s (PDEA) Public Information Office, confirmed that the seizure of assets is a different case from the criminal cases.
Espinosa is the son of slain former Albuera mayor Rolando Espinosa Sr. The family's legal troubles began in August 2016, when then President Rodrigo Duterte issued an ultimatum to both father and son, leading to Rolando's surrender. Rolando was elected mayor in May 2016 but was arrested two months later for illegal drug and firearm possession. Espinosa was arrested in the Middle East in October 2016.
Rolando was killed in his jail cell in November 2016. The National Bureau of Investigation later concluded the death was an extrajudicial killing.
Espinosa's acquittal on a major drug trading case in June 2023 marked a turning point. He filed his candidacy for mayor of Albuera, Leyte, in October 2024, survived a shooting at a campaign rally in April 2025, and won the mayoral race in May.
Yet the Regional Trial Courts of Manila ordered the forfeiture of his assets, including six real estate properties in Albuera, Leyte; Ormoc City; and Misamis Oriental; 13 high-end vehicles such as Toyota HiAce vans, Ford and Kia pickups, a Nissan Navara and a Toyota Fortuner; multiple bank accounts; and watercraft and firearms, including two jet skis, a jet boat, a Yamaha motorcycle and several pistols and shotguns.
Different standards of proof
Criminal cases require proof beyond reasonable doubt. A single gap in evidence or procedural misstep can lead to acquittal. Civil forfeiture cases use a lower standard: preponderance of evidence. The government must only show that assets were more likely than not derived from illegal activity, according to the Philippine Law Journal.
This dual-track approach allows authorities to pursue financial penalties even when criminal convictions fail. The logic is straightforward: prosecutors may struggle to prove a defendant committed specific crimes, but financial records can still reveal assets that no legitimate income could explain.
The property, not the person
Forfeiture cases are “in rem” — against the property itself — rather than “in personam,” which targets the individual. Courts don't ask whether Espinosa is guilty. They ask whether the assets are "tainted" by drug trafficking or money laundering.
The Regional Trial Courts of Manila ruled that Espinosa's portfolio was disproportionate to his legitimate income. Evidence showed the assets were linked to drug operations through aliases and proxy owners such as Artemio A. Magno, Laura M. Yu, Grace Eamiguel Caparoso and Rogelio Caparoso, and Sherlita Garrido-Pelicano.
The courts found these assets were acquired through years of illegal drug trafficking and money laundering, often concealed under false names to obscure their true origin.
Independent legal action
Asset forfeiture is a separate civil action under the Anti-Money Laundering Act and the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. Even after a criminal acquittal, the government can pursue forfeiture if it traces assets to unlawful sources.
The proceedings run on parallel tracks. A criminal trial examines whether the accused committed specific acts. A forfeiture case examines whether property has an illegal source. The two cases can produce opposite results because they answer different questions under different standards.
A strategic shift
PDEA Director General Undersecretary Isagani Nerez said in a statement that the operation reflects a new government strategy: dismantling criminal organizations by cutting off their financial resources rather than simply arresting individuals.
Nerez said the success resulted from firm interagency collaboration led by the Anti-Money Laundering Council in partnership with the PDEA, Philippine National Police and National Bureau of Investigation.
Anti-Money Laundering Council Executive Director Matthew David praised the agencies for their "close coordination" and the sharing of "critical confidential information," which were essential in building airtight cases.
Nina's assets also seized
The Philippine government also ordered the forfeiture of multimillion-peso assets connected to international drug financier Sally Ang Nina, whose operations spanned Eastern Visayas and international drug trafficking routes.
Courts identified over P51 million in various bank accounts and investment funds; P10 million in unit investment trust funds; luxury vehicles, including two Honda CR-Vs; and contingent liabilities totaling P36.54 million. Nina operated under various aliases, including Sharon Xia Lim, Xie Ming Fen, Xie Mei Rong, Tian Gang Shi, Sarah Lee Jessica and Evelyn H. See Ting.
The PDEA said freezing these assets dealt a major blow to Nina's drug network, crippling its financial and operational capacity. Nina's associates — Ten Tiang Shi, Sarah Lee Jessica and Evelyn H. See Ting — were also stripped of their financial holdings, further weakening the international drug syndicate.
The PDEA called the combined forfeitures "the largest court-ordered asset forfeiture in the history of the Philippines' anti-drug law enforcement." (KAL/TPM)