THE Supreme Court (SC) ruled that wealth acquired by public officers during their time in office that clearly exceeds their lawful income is presumed ill-gotten and may be forfeited, even if registered under the names of other individuals.
In a decision written by Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao, the SC’s Third Division upheld the forfeiture of properties, bank deposits, and investment accounts in the name of retired Lieutenant General Jacinto C. Ligot (General Ligot), as well as assets traced to him but registered under his wife, children, and relatives.
Ligot served in the Armed Forces of the Philippines from 1970 until his retirement in 2004, and was a commissioned comptroller during the relevant period.
The Ombudsman conducted a lifestyle investigation to determine whether the properties he acquired during active service exceeded his salary and other lawful income.
His declared assets in his Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs) from 1982 to 2003 did not reflect the actual properties under his name and those of his close family members, leading to a petition for forfeiture filed against him before the Sandiganbayan.
The petition also named his wife, their children, and his sister and brother-in-law, who were allegedly used as fronts to conceal his assets.
The Sandiganbayan found several undeclared properties registered under Ligot’s name and/or his wife. Other undeclared properties were registered under their children’s names.
The Sandiganbayan also traced several condominium units to Ligot: units in Makati City in his sister’s name, where most amortization payments were made by Ligot and his wife; and a unit in Taguig City registered under his brother-in-law, which was originally purchased by Ligot’s wife.
Another petition for forfeiture was filed against Ligot and his family, alleging that bank deposits and investment accounts under their names were manifestly out of proportion to Ligot’s declared lawful income.
The Sandiganbayan found that the properties, which were worth P102 million, and deposits and investment funds amounting to P53 million, were unlawfully acquired and ordered their forfeiture.
Ligot and his family then filed a petition before the SC, arguing that the condominium units in question were not his and had been legitimately purchased by his relatives. They also claimed that their deposits and invested funds were not disproportionate to the family’s income.
During the pendency of the petition, Ligot passed away, and his family continued to pursue the case.
Ligot’s sister and brother-in-law also filed their petitions, asserting that they owned the condominium units and should not be included in the order of forfeiture.
The SC rejected their claims and upheld the Sandiganbayan’s ruling.
The court noted that Ligot’s wife and children did not have independent income sources but still owned properties and held significant bank and investment accounts under their names.
Regarding the condominiums, even though they were titled in his sister’s name, the amortizations were paid by Ligot. The condominium listed under his brother-in-law’s name was initially bought by Ligot’s wife, who lacked her own income.
The SC held that these circumstances indicate that Ligot was the true owner, even if the legal titles were in other people’s names.
Under Republic Act (RA) 1379, properties of public officers are presumed to be illegally acquired when they are manifestly out of proportion to their lawful income. This presumption applies not only to properties under the public officer’s name but also to those hidden or transferred to others, as long as true ownership can be traced to the public officer.
The SC explained that, “[RA] 1379 would be rendered ineffectual if the registration of properties in the name of third persons would suffice to forestall the presumption under Section 2 of the law from arising.”
The court emphasized that registration under another person’s name does not prevent forfeiture when true ownership can be traced to the public officer.
The SC also said that proceedings on unexplained wealth are exempt from bank secrecy laws when bank deposits are the subject of forfeiture, as in this case. (PR)