FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. Nos. 238103 & 238223, January 06, 2020 ]
FLORENCIO TUMBOCON MIRAFLORES AND MA. LOURDES MARTIN MIRAFLORES, PETITIONERS, VS.
OFFICE OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:
The Case
This petition for certiorari[1] assails, on ground of grave abuse of discretion, the following dispositions of
respondent Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) in OMB-V-C-15-0115, for violation of Section 7[2] of
Republic Act 3019 [3] (RA 3019), in relation to Section 8[4] of Republic Act 6713 [5] (RA 6713); and OMB-
V-F-15-0001, for forfeiture of unlawfully acquired properties under Republic Act 1379 (RA 1379), viz:
The Proceedings before the OMB
The assailed OMB Joint Resolution[9] dated August 12, 2016 bears the parties' respective
submissions, viz:
[FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE'S (FIO)] CHARGES
Complainant (respondent in this case) alleged that respondents (petitioners in this case) amassed
wealth disproportionate to their legitimate incomes. It also alleged the following:
From the declarations in their 2001-2009 SALNs, the total change in respondent's net worth xxx
amounted to P4,665,938.02, while their estimated total compensation xxx income for the same years
amounted to P4,920,519.00 where P3,799,170.00 is Florencio's estimated compensation,
while Pl,121,349.00 is the estimated compensation of Lourdes;
The computation of the real properties in their 2001 to 2009 SALNs xxx, shows that the acquisition
costs were not consistently used as there were times that the fair market value of the properties [was]
adopted/added; hence the actual value spent to acquire the properties were not declared. The
inconsistencies therefor affected the actual [Net worth] of respondents, which upon re-computation xxx
amounted to P10,237,518.02, not P4,665,938.02;
xxxx
Using respondents' recomputed net worth of P10,237,518.02 less their known income of P4,920,519.00,
there is a total unexplained wealth of P5,316,999.02. This amount, however, does not take into account
the expenses incurred by respondents for their numerous travels abroad and other living expenses. The
amount of unexplained wealth was taken from the acquisition costs of assets and liabilities declared in
the 2001 to 2009 SALN;
Respondents either overvalued, undervalued or did not declare some of the properties registered under
their names, such as: (a) the residential land (with improvement) located in Quezon City, which was
acquired in 2000 and declared in the 2001 SALN with acquisition cost of only P242,620.00 and
P50,000.00 for improvement. However, based on the annotations at the back of Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) No. 210613 and Tax Declaration No. D-125-01482, the property costs [P1,500,000.00]; (b) the
Mitsubishi Pajero and Toyota Fortuner were undervalued by P90,200.00 and P118,000.00, respectively,
while the Toyota Hi-Ace GL Grandia was overvalued by P45,000.00; and (c) the Isuzu Elf, Toyota Pick-up,
Nissan Safari Wagon and Kawasaki Motorcycle with a total acquisition cost of P708,400.00, were not
declared; ·
Although Lourdes acquired shares of stocks from the Rural Bank of Ibajay, Inc. [(RBII)] in 1989, the value
of said shares of stocks amounting to P6,497,200.00 was only declared in their 2008 and 2009 SALNs;
and
The amounts of certain liabilities were either overstated or still declared despite having been fully paid,
such as the housing loan and multi-purpose loan (MPL) from Pag- I.B.I.G. Fund Iloilo Branch and the
Ember Salary Loan from the Government Insurance System (GSIS).
[SPOUSES MIRAFLORES'] CLAIMS
In denying the accusations against them, respondents asserted that the computation of their total
income should be P12,132,519.00, an amount which is proportional to the alleged increase in their net
worth of P10,237,518.02 from 2001 to 2009.
Respondents averred that in the computation of their incomes, complaint disregarded their incomes
from their assets, i.e. fish ponds, farm and coconut lands, and financial interests in their rural banking
business that were consistently declared in. their SALNs. Also disregarded were the incomes of their
adult children. who started to earn in 2009 and other remunerations, including per diems,
representation and transportation allowances (RATA) and other fees, all constitute their legitimate
sources of funds and may cover the family expenses. Their loan of almost P20,000,000.00 was incurred
to subsidize their living and enable them to acquire the properties added to their assets from 2001 to
2009.
To show that they declared all their properties, respondents alleged that they included in their SALNs
properties which they inherited but which are still undistributed and co-owned with the other heirs. The
costs of some assets were also declared based on the amount stated in the deeds of sale and other costs
incurred in acquiring such assets, such as loan interest, discount, accessories, insurance, etc., and the
mode by which such assets were acquired, e.g. by loan.
Respondents further explained that they did not declare in their 2001 to 2009 SALNs the Nissan Safari
Wagon, Mazda Pick-up (alleged in the complaint as Toyota Pick-up) and Kawasaki motorcycle all
registered in their names, as they are already owned, used and given to persons who had served their
family for many years. The sworn statements of Allen S. Quimpo (Quimpo), Efren Trinidad (Trinidad) and
Antonio M. Pamisan (Pamisan) were submitted in support of their claim.
Additionally, to show that their accumulated wealth from 2001 to 2009 is not disproportionate to their
sources of income/funds, respondents presented a computation of their net worth, income and
liabilities from 2004 to 2013. Allegedly, while their SALNs did not provide every minute detail of
information, they, however, provided all necessary data following the detailed and
complete requirement of RA 6713. As the SALNs were prepared in good faith, the difficulty in
determining their net worth and income should not operate to disregard the legal income from
them. [10]
The same Joint Resolution shows a summary of petitioner's Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net
worth (SALNs) for 2001-2009,[11]. viz:
Table 1: Petitioners' SALNs for years 2001 - 2005
ASSETS 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Real Properties
Riceland in
Regador,
Ibajay,
Aklan P1,100,000.00 P1,200,000.00 P1,300,000.00 P1,300,000.00 P1,300,000.00
Cocoland in
Regador,
Ibajay,
Aklan 2,200,000.00 2,300,000.00 2,400,000.00 2,400,000.00 2,400,000.00
plus 10,000.00
Residential
Lot in
Poblacion
Ibajay,
Aklan 850,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00
plus
2,000,000.00
Residential
Lot in
Quezon
City 691,280.00 891,280.00 2,500,000.00 2,500,000.00 2,500,000.00
Fishpond in
Capiz 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 5,500,000.00 5,500,000.00 5,500,000.00
plus 90,000.00
Total P9,841,280.00
*Current Fair
Market Value P12,391,280.00
*Current Fair
Market Value P14,700,000.00
*Current Fair
Market Value P14,700,000.00
*Current Fair
Market Value P16,800,000.00
*Current Fair
Market Value &
Acquisition Cost
Personal and other Properties
Pick up
(Mazda) P450,000.00 P450,000.00 P450,000.00 P450,000.00
Automobile 600,000.00 600,000.00 600,000.00 600,000.00 600,000.00
Jewelries 300,000.00 400,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00
Books 50,000.00 55,000.00 60,000.00 60,000.00 60,000.00
Clothes/
Appliances 330,000.00 400,000.00 400,000.00 400,000.00 400,000.00
Bank
Deposits/On
Hand 600,000.00 700,000.00 900,000.00 900,000.00 500,000.00
Pick-up
(Nissan) 900,000.00
Automobile
(Mazda) 780,000.00
Total P3,630,000.00 P3,905,000.00 P4,210,000.00 P4,210,000.00 P5,040,000.00
TOTAL
ASSETS P13,471,280.00 P16,296,280.00 P18,910,000.00 P18,910,000.00 P21,840,000.00
LIABILITIES 2001 2002 2003 2004 20015
Housing Loan
(Pag-Ibig) P1,050,754.02 P900,000.00 P700,000.00 P700,000.00 P560,000.00
Housing Loan 2,200,000.00
(BPI) 2,000,000.00
(Equitable
Bank ) 1,650,000.00 1,650,000.00 1,820,759.59
Car Loan 600,000.00 300,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 314,628.00
(Mazda)
GSIS (Salary
and Policy ) 170,000.00 120,000.00 80,000.00 80,000.00 80,000.00
Prvate Loans 1,300,000.00 1,000,000.00 2,100,000.00 2,100,000.00 5,000,000.00
Multi-purpose
Loan (Pag-Ibig) 45,000.00 45,000.00 45,000.00
TOTAL
LIABILITIES P4,260,754.02 P4,320,000.00 P4,775,000.00 P4,775,000.00 P7,820,387.59
NETWORTH P8,850,525.98 P11,976,280.00 P14,135,000.00 P14,135,000.00 P14,019,612.41[12]
1234 Table 2: Petitioners' SALNs for years 2006-2009
ASSETS 2006 2007 2008 2009
Real Properties
Riceland in Regador
Ibajay, Aklan P1,600,000.00 P1,600,000.00 P1,600,000.00 P1,600,000.00
Cocoland in Regador,
Ibajay, Aklan 2,700,000.00 P3,600,000.00 2,700,000.00 2,700,000.00
Residential Lot in
Poblacion Ibajay, Aklan 3,500,000.00
plus
2,000,000.00
plus
5,000,000.00 6,000,000.00 3,500,000.00 3,500,000.00
Residential Lot in
Quezon City 5,000,000.00
plus
4,500,000.00
plus
300,000.00 5,300,000.00 5,000,000.00
plus
4,800,000.00 5,000,000.00
plus
4,800,000.00
Fishpond in Capiz 7,250,000.00
plus
150,000.00 7,350,000.00 7,200,000.00 7,200,000.00
Residential Property in
Quezon City 9,000,000.00 9,000,000.00
Total P27,750,000.00
*Cuurent Fair
Market Value &
Acquition
Cost P23,250,000.00
*Cuurent Fair
Market Value P13,800,000.00
Personal and other Properties
Automobile 600,000.00 600,000.00
Stocks (Equitypaid) 6,497,200.00 6,497,200.00
Deposits/advanced
payments on rentals 180,000.00 180,000.00
Furniture, antiques 600,000.00 600,000.00
Jewelry 870,000.00 700,000.00 990,000.00 990,000.00
Books 60,000.00 60,000.00
Clothes/Appliances 500,000.00 500,000.00
Bank Deposits/On
Hand 550,000.00 550,000.00 770,000.00 770,000.00
Pajero Van 1,300,000.00 1,300,000.00
Pick-up (Nissan) 900,000.00 900,000.00 900,000.00 900,000.00
Automobile (Mazda) 780,000.00 780,000.00
Toyota Fortuner
Plate No. ZDE457 1,250,00.00 1,250,00.00 1,250,00.00 1,250,00.00
Toyota Hi Ace Grandia
Plate No. ZLZ439 1,465,000.00 1,465,000.00 1,465,000.00
Mitsubishi Pajero Van
Plate No. WHN 852 1,300,000.00 1,300,000.00
Mazda
Plate No. ZAB 675 780,000.00 780,000.00
Honda Civic
Plate No. UHG 852 600,000.00 600,000.00
Mitsubishi Pajero
Plate No. ZNZ 924 2,608,000.00 2,608,000.00
Others 60,000.00 60,000.00
Total P6,640,000.00 P8,275,000.00 P18,540,200.00
TOTAL ASSETS P34,390,000.00 P31,525,000.00 P31,800,200.00 P32,340,200.00
LIABILITIES 2006 2007 2008 2009
Housing Loan (Pag-Ibig) 560,000.00
Housing Loan 1,820,759.59 3,000,000.00
(BPI) 2,817,624.00
(BPI)
Personal Loan 8,000,000.00 4,000,000.00
Bank Loans 4,283,736.00
Car Loan (Mazda) 314,628.00 314,628.00
GSIS Loan (Salary and
Policy ) 45,000.00 45,000.00
Private Loans 6,000,000.00 8,000,000.00
Multi-purpose Loan
(Pag-Ibig) 45,000.00 45,000.00
Car Loan (Hi-Ace) 879,000.00
RCBC Grandia Car
Loan 483,744.00
RCBC Pajero Car Loan 982,368.00
UCPB Housing Loan 10,000,000.00
TOTAL
LIABILITIES P8,785,387.59 P12,283,628.00 P12,238,736.00 P18,283,736.00
NETWORTH P25,604,612.41 P19,241,372.00 19,516,464.00 P14,056,464.00 [13]
It also contains a summary of FIO's computation[14] f petitioners' net worth, viz:
Year Networth Change in
Networth Known Income Explain/Unexplained
Wealth
2001 -P288,134.02 0.00 P402,578.00 -P402,578.00
2002 1,595,000.00 1,883,134.02 446,063.00 1,437,163.00
2003 1,834,000.00 239,000.00 438,163.00 -199,163.00
2004 1,534,000.00 -300,000.00 412,366.00 -712,366.00
2005 -723,267.59 -2,257,267.59 420,000.00 -2677,267.59
2006 5,679,732.41 6,403,000.00 420,000.00 5,983,000.00
2007 3,771,492.00 -1908,240.41 862,936.00 2,544,517.41
2008 6,999,384.00 3,227,892.00 862,936.00 2,364,864.00
2009 9,949,384.00 2,950,000.00 882,136.00 2,067,864.00
Total P10,237,518.02 P4,920,519.00 P5,316,999.02 [15]
Too, the Joint Resolution bears the OM B's finding of probable cause against petitioners for violation of
RA 3019[16] in relation to RA 6713;[17] and for forfeiture of unlawfully acquired properties.[18] The
OMB held in the main:
By declaring amounts higher or lower than the actual costs (Acquisition Costs) of their real and personal
properties, petitioners violated the rule on submission of complete and accurate SALNs.
As for the undeclared motor vehicles, petitioners admitted having bought the same, albeit they
conveniently claimed that they had given these motor vehicles to their long-time employees as
accommodation or reward. This is at best self-serving.
Regarding Lourdes' RBII shareholdings, she held ownership thereof since 1989 and yet she failed to
declare their value in her very first 2007 SALN. She indicated it only in her subsequent 2008 SALN.
The alleged source for the purchase of petitioners' family home in Quezon City appeared to be dubious
i.e. HSBC remittances from Florencio's siblings. No documents were presented to prove Florencio's
relationship with the supposed sponsors and the latter's financial capacity.
The increase in petitioners' net worth was not supported by their reported incomes/compensations.
In their subsequent motion for reconsideration, petitioners basically averred:
FIRST. The OMB adopted FIO's so-called erroneous and inaccurate re-computation. Petitioners' right to
be infonned of the charges against them was thereby violated.
SECOND. Whatever criminal liability corresponded to their SALNs for 2001-2009 had already prescribed.
THIRD. They did not acquire any property grossly disproportionate to their salaries. They had in fact
conclusively shown that the increase in their net worth may be attributed to their ineomes or earnings
for the periods these properties were acquired.
FOURTH. There was no allegation or proof that the entries in their SALNs were intended to mislead or
deceive.
FIFTH. They had a valid justification for not disclosing or for otherwise misdeclaring some assets in their
SALNs.
SIXTH. The FIO's mechanical "net-worth-to-income-discrepancy" analysis, standing alone, cannot
support the finding of probable cause against them.
Pending resolution of their motion for reconsideration, petitioners filed a Manifestation dated
December 5, 2017 calling attention to the Decision[19] dated November 17, 2017 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 149592. In that case, they were cleared of any administrative liability for
serious dishonesty or grave misconduct in relation to the same 2001-2009 SALNs subject of the criminal
cases.
By Joint Order[20] dated October 2, 2017, the OMB affirmed with modification. It reduced on ground of
prescription, the counts of violation of Section 8 of RA 3019, in relation to RA 6713 against Florencio
from nine to four.
THE PRESENT PETITION
Petitioners now seek to nullify the OMB's Joint Resolution dated August 12, 2016 and Joint Order dated
October 2, 2017. They assert:
The OMB committed grave abuse of discretion when it adopted as bases of finding probable cause the
FIO's erroneous and unsubstantiated computation of their net worth, thus, violating their right to be
informed of the charges against them.
OMB committed grave abuse of discretion when it failed to accord due recognition to the Court of
Appeals' Decision dated November 17, 2017 in CA-G.R. SP No.149592 clearing them of any
administrative liability pertaining to the same SALNs subject of the present case.
The OMB committed grave abuse of discretion when it resolved the cases only after eight (8) long years
since the investigation commenced in 2010, thus, violating their right to speedy disposition of the cases
against them.
In its Comment ,[21] the OMB counters:
The Complaint [22] clearly charged petitioners with vio1ation of Section 8 of RA 3019, in relation to RA
6713 pertaining to their own SALNs on record, hence, they could not have been deprived of their right
to be informed of the charges against them.
The FIO's computation was based on the acquisition costs of petitioners' assets, liabilities, and net worth
indicated in their own SALNs.
Its finding of probable cause was based on petitioners' incomplete SALNs and the various inconsistencies
found therein.
Since petitioners themselves admitted having purchased and registered subject motor vehicles in their
names, they may not deny ownership thereof. The letters [23] acknowledging receipt by the supposed
persons in whose favor petitioners had allegedly conveyed these motor vehicles as a reward for their
loyal service to petitioners' family are self-serving, nay, replete with inconsistencies.
Lourdes cannot disclaim liability for her failure to declare the acquisition cost of her RBII shareholdings
in her 2007 SALN. Her bare allegation that RBII had a negative book value is devoid of merit. Petitioners
themselves had previously admitted that as condition to acquiring these shareholdings they had to
assume the liabilities of the Garcia family to RBII. This simply goes to show that the RBII shareholdings
bore a substantial value and were onerously acquired.
ISSUES
Did the OMB gravely abuse its discretion when it found probable cause against petitioners for violation
of Section 8 of RA 3019, in relation to Section 7 of RA 6713 and for forfeiture of unlawfully acquired
properties under RA 1379?
Did the OMB violate petitioners' right to be sufficiently informed of the charges against them?
Did the OMB violate petitioners' right to speedy disposition of the cases which allegedly got resolved
only eight years after their investigation commenced?
Does the ruling of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 149592 affect the present criminal complaints
against petitioners?
RULING
In finding probable cause against petitioners for violation of Section 7 of RA 3019,[24] in relation to
Section 8 of RA 6713[25] and for forfeiture of unlawfully acquired properties under RA 1379, the OMB
made an exhaustive discussion of their alleged undervalued, overvalued, and undeclared properties
based on their SALNs for 20 01-2009; the Certifications obtained from the Provincial Accountant of
Aklan,[26] Accounting Service of the House of Representatives, [27] Pag-I.B.I.G Fund [28] and
GSIS;[29] and petitioners' affinnative defenses as pleaded in their Joint Counter-Affidavit,[30] Joint
Position Paper [31] and Motion for Reconsideration,[32] including their two-inch thick documentary
attachments.
After the evaluation process, the OMB came out with its finding of probable cause that petitioners
either undervalued, overvalued, or failed to declare certain properties in their SALNs for 2001 - 2009.
These properties included several motor vehicles, RBII shares of stock worth P6,160,000.00, loans, and
additional incomes and earnings.
We affirm the OMB's finding of probable cause. Consider:
ONE. Petitioners have not denied that they did fail to declare in their SALNs for 2001 - 2009 the
following motor vehicles i.e. Isuzu Elf, Nissan Safari Wagon, Mazda Pick Up and Kawasaki
motorcycle.[33] They in fact admitted having purchased these vehicles in their own name and using
their own money. They claim, however, that they no longer own these vehicles because they already
conveyed them gratis et amore to their valued employees as reward for their long years of loyal service
to their family. In this regard, petitioners submitted to the OMB the letters[34] acknowledging receipt of
the vehicles by these alleged beneficiaries.
We agree with the OMB that these documents, as worded, do not alter the fact that it was petitioners
themselves who bought the vehicles in their own name and with their own funds. They have not even
shown that these vehicles are no longer registered in their names after they allegedly conveyed them in
favor of the so-called "beneficiaries". Consequently, there is merit to the finding of the OMB that these
affidavits, standing alone, do not negate, nay, justify petitioners' failure to declare them in their SALNs
for 2001 - 2009. At any rate, whether these affidavits reflect the truth is a question of fact which the
Court, not being a trier of facts, cannot take cognizance of.
TWO. Under Section 7 of RA 3019, every public officer is directed to file a true, detailed, and sworn
statement of assets and liabilities, including among others, a statement of the amounts and sources of
his or her income and/or earnings.
Petitioners assert that aside from the salaries and allowances they received as government elective
officials, they derived other incomes and/or earnings from the fishponds, farm and coconut lots, and
rural banking business[35] they own. The record speaks for itself. Petitioners' SALNs for 2001 - 2009 are
totally devoid of any single entry supposedly representing additional income or earnings derived from
petitioners' aforesaid assets. Surely, this omission, by itself is a violation of Section 7 of RA 3019, in
relation to Section 8 of RA 6713.
THREE. Petitioners vigorously profess that the properties they had acquired over the years were either
financed from their salaries or from loans obtained from Pag-I.B.I.G. Fund (i.e., housing loan[36] and
Multi-Purpose Loan[37] ) and GSIS (i.e., Ember Salary Loan[38] ). But per Certifications, respectively,
issued by Pag-I.B.I.G. Fund[39] and GSIS,[40] the loan amounts declared in petitioners' SALNs were
either bloated or repeatedly entered therein as loans, albeit they had been fully paid long ago. The
Court keenly notes that petitioners have conspicuously failed to refute these damaging findings ofthe
OMB.
FOUR. Regarding the RBII shareholdings of Lourdes, she claims to have acquired the same in 1989. When
she joined the government in 2007, however, she did not include the value of these shareholdings in her
initial SALN. She began declaring it only in her 2008 SALN where she declared that the asset had a value
ofPhp 6,497,200.00.
Lourdes seeks to clarify though that she actually had no value to declare back in 2007 because RBII was
then of negative book value. She asserts that the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) even directed RBII to
infuse additional capital to save it from receivership. The best evidence to prove this point are the
financial reports submitted by RBII to the BSP and the latter's written directive for RBII's infusion of
additional capital. Lourdes could have easily obtained these certifications from the files of RBII itself, but
she did not. What she submitted instead were supposed independent Audited Financial
Statements,[41] General Information Sheet[42] (GIS) and Accountant's Report[43] on RBII. Whether
these documents are sufficient to excuse Lourdes from reporting the actual value of her RBII
shareholdings in her 2007 SALN is again a question of fact which the Court still cannot take cognizance
of.
For purposes of filing a criminal information, probable cause pertains to facts and circumstances
sufficient to create a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the accused is probably
guilty thereof.[44] As such, a fmding of probable cause does not require an inquiry on whether there is
sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. The presence or absence of the elements of the crime is
evidentiary in nature and a matter of defense which may be passed upon only after a full-blown trial on
the merits. In sum, whether a party's defense or accusation is valid and meritorious and whether the
evidence presented are admissible fall beyond the process of determining probable cause. They are for
the trial court to completely determine through a full-blown trial on the merits.[45]
FIVE. On petitioners' right to be sufficiently informed of the charges against them, the record once more
speaks for itself. Petitioners had not once, but twice responded to FIO's charges through their sixteen-
page Joint Counter-Affidavit,[46] seventeen-page Joint Position Paper[47] and their two-inch thick
documents as attachments. These submissions certainly could not have come from parties who did not
sufficiently understand the charges hurled against them.
Petitioners, too, harp on the OMB 's purported eight-year delay in disposing of the cases against them.
This issue is being raised for the first time here and now. Petitioners never raised it in all the eight years
the proceedings below pended. Even then, aside from claiming here that the case had dragged for over
eight years before the OMB, petitioners have not cited the specific attendant circumstances in support
of their lamentation, e.g., the length of delay, reason for the delay, petitioners' assertion of their right to
speedy disposition of the cases against them and consequent prejudice to them,[48] if any.
In any case, whether there was inordinate delay below is another question of fact which, again, the
Court, not being a trier of facts, cannot take cognizance of.
In another vein, while indeed the CA had cleared petitioners of any administrative liability for serious
dishonesty and grave misconduct based on the same acts for which they are criminally charged, the
same does not affect the finding of probable cause against them here. For one, there is no showing that
the decision of the CA is final and executory. For another, although the criminal cases involve the same
acts or omissions complained of in the administrative cases, petitioners' absolution in the latter does not
bar their prosecution in the former, and vice versa. The quantum of evidence required in one is different
from the quantum of evidence required in the other.[49]
Petitioners also raise the issue of whether they can be faulted for their alternate and/or simultaneous
use of Fair Market Value and/or Acquisition Cost in the valuation of their real properties declared in
their SALNs.[50] Suffice it to state that the presence or absence of good faith still is another question of
fact. We reiterate that the Court is not a trier of facts.
In closing, the Court refers to Dichaves v . Office of the Ombudsman,[51] viz:
As a general rule, this Court does not interfere with the Office of the Ombudsman's exercise of its
constitutional mandate. Both the Constitution and Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989)
give the Ombudsman wide latitude to act on criminal complaints against public officials and government
employees. The rule on non-interference is based on the "respect for the investigatory and prosecutory
powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman[.]"
An independent constitutional body, the Office of the Ombudsman is "beholden to no one, acts as the
champion of the people [,] and [is] the preserver of the integrity of the public service." Thus, it 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.
The executive determination of probable cause is a highly factual matter. It requires probing into the
"existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on
the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for
which he [or she] was prosecuted."
The Office of the Ombudsman is armed with the power to investigate. It is, therefore, in a better
position to assess the strengths or weaknesses of the evidence on hand needed to make a finding of
probable cause. As this Court is not a trier of facts, we defer to the sound judgment of the Ombudsman.
Practicality also leads this Court to exercise restraint in interfering with the Office of the Ombudsman's
finding of probable cause. Republic v. Ombudsman Desierto explains:
[T]he functions of the courts will be grievously hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the
dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to
complaints filed before it, in much the same way that the courts would be extremely swamped if they
could be compelled to review the exercise of discretion on the part of the fiscals or prosecuting
attorneys each time they decide to file an information in court or dismiss a complaint by a private
complaint.
Invoking an exception to the rule on non-interference, petitioner alleges that the Ombudsman
committed grave abuse of discretion. According to him: (a) he was not given the opportunity to cross-
examine the witnesses, (b) the Ombudsman considered pieces of evidence not presented during the
preliminary investigation, and (c) there is no probable cause to charge him with plunder.
While, indeed, this Court may step in if the public prosecutor gravely abused its discretion in acting on
the case, such grave abuse must be substantiated, not merely alleged. In Casing v. Hon. Ombudsman, et
al.:
Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of
jurisdiction. The Ombudsman's exercise of power must have been done in an arbitrary or despotic
manner - which must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual
refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law - in order to exceptionally
warrant judicial intervention.
As in Dichaves,[52] there is here no showing that the OMB gravely abused its discretion in finding
probable cause against petitioners for violation of Section 7 of RA 3019, in relation to Section 8 of RA
6713 and for forfeiture of unlawfully acquired properties under RA 1379. The Court, therefore, adheres
to the rule of judicial restraint or non-interference with the OM B's exercise of its constitutional
investigative power and its consequent finding of probable cause.
Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED and the Joint Resolution dated August 12, 2016 and Joint Order
dated October 2, 2017, in Case Nos. OMB-V-C-15-0115 and OMB-V-F-15-0001, AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Peralta, C.J., Caguioa, and Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur
Lopez, JJ., on official leave.
[1] Filed under Rule 65, Rules of Court; Petition, rollo (Vol. I), pp. 7- 104.
[2] Section 7. Statement of assets and liabilities- Every public officer, within thirty days after the
approval of this Act or after assuming office, and within the month of January of every other year
thereafter, as well as upon the expiration of his term of office, or upon his resignation or separation
from office, shall prepare and file with the office of the corresponding Department Head, or in the case
of a Head of Department or chief of an independent office, with the Office of the President, or in the
case of members of the Congress and the officials and employees thereof, with the Office of the
Secretary of the corresponding House, a true detailed and sworn statement of assets and liabilities,
including a statement of the amounts and sources of his income, the amounts of his personal and family
expenses and the amount of income taxes paid for the next preceding calendar year: Provided, That
public officers assuming office less than two months before the end of the calendar year, may file their
statements in the following months of January.
[3] Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
[4] 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.
(A) Statements of Assets and Liabilities and Financial Disclosure. - All public officials and employees,
except those who serve in an honorary capacity, laborers and casual or temporary workers, shall file
under oath their Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and a Disclosure of Business Interests
and Financial Connections and those of their spouses and unmarried children under eighteen ( 18) years
of age living in their households.
The documents shall contain information on the following:
(a) real property, its improvements, acquisition costs, assessed value and current fair market value;
(b) personal property and acquisition cost;
(c) all other assets such as investments, cash on hand or in banks, stocks, bonds, and the like;
(d) liabilities, and;
(e) all business interests and financial connections.
The documents must be filed:
(a) within thirty (30) days after assumption of office;
(b) on or before April 30, of every year thereafter; and
(c) within thirty (30) days after separation from the service.
[5] Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
[6] Rollo (Vol. I), p. 129.
[7] An Act Declaring Forfeiture in Favor of the State Any Property Found to Have Been Unlawfully
Acquired by Any Public Officer or Employee and Providing for the Proceedings Therefor.
[8] Rollo (Vol. I), p. 140.
[9] Id at 129.
[10] Id. at 111-115.
[11] See Rollo (Vol. I), pp. 379-399 and Rollo (Vol. II), pp. 638-652.
[12] Rollo (Vol. I), pp. 119-120
[13] Id. at 120-121.
[14] Rollo (Vol. I), 347-364.
[15] Id. at 352 and 112.
[16] Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
[17] Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
[18] RA 1379.
[19] Rollo (Vol. II), pp.753-777.
[20] Rollo (Vol. I), pp. 132-141.
[21] Rollo (Vol. II), pp. 804- 823.
[22] Rollo (Vol. I), pp. 347 - 364.
[23] Id at 281-283.
[24] Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
[25] Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
[26] Rollo (Vol. I), pp. 448-449.
[27] Id. at 451.
[28] Id. at 600 - 607.
[29] Id. at 608- 612.
[30] Rollo (Vol. II), pp. 617-633.
[31] Id. at 670- 687.
[32] Rollo (Vol. I), pp. 143 - 202.
[33] Id. at 124-125.
[34] Id. at 281-283.
[35] Id at 114.
[36] Rollo (Vol. I), p.358.
[37] Id.
[38] Id. at 359.
[39] Id. at 600-607.
[40] Id. at 608-612.
[41] Rollo (Vol. I), pp. 287-300.
[42] Id. at 580-592.
[43] Id. at211-223.
[44] Villanueva v. Caparas, 702 Phil. 609, 614 (2013).
[45] PCGG v. Navarra-Gutierrez, 772 Phil. 91, 101 (2015).
[46] Rollo (Vol. II), pp. 617-633.
[47] Id. at 670-687.
[48] See Magante v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 230950-51, July 23,2018.
[49] See De Leon v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 222861, April 23, 2018.
[50] Rollo (Vol. I), pp. 379-412.
[51] 802 Phil. 564, 589-591 (2016).
[52] Id., citations omitted.
FLORENCIO TUMBOCON MIRAFLORES AND MA. LOURDES MARTIN MIRAFLORES, PETITIONERS, VS.
OFFICE OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE, RESPONDENTS., G.R.
Nos. 238103 & 238223, January 06, 2020
