SC: Public officer's acquired wealth exceeding lawful income may be forfeited
A public officer's acquired wealth during office that clearly exceeds their lawful income is presumed ill-gotten and may be forfeited, even if registered under other individuals, the Supreme Court ruled.
In a decision made public on Nov. 20, the SC's Third Division upheld the forfeiture of properties, bank deposits, and investment accounts under retired Lt. Gen. Jacinto Ligot, his wife, children, and relatives.
The Ombudsman conducted a lifestyle check on Ligot, who served in the Armed Forces of the Philippines from 1970 to 2004, and found that his declared assets in his Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth from 1983 to 2003 did not reflect the actual properties under his name. His wife, children, sister, and brother-in-law were also named in the petition as alleged fronts to conceal his assets.
"The Sandiganbayan found several undeclared properties registered under General Ligot’s name and/or his wife. Other undeclared properties were registered under their children’s names," the SC said in a statement.
Another forfeiture petition against Ligot alleged that bank deposits and investment accounts under his and his family's names were "manifestly out of proportion" to the general's declared lawful income.
The SC ordered the forfeiture of Ligot's "unlawfully acquired" properties worth P102 million and deposits and investment funds amounting to P53 million.
In response, Ligot and his family filed a petition before the SC arguing that the condo units in question were legitimately purchased. They also claimed that the said wealth was "not disproportionate" to their family's income.
Ligot passed away while the petition was pending, and his family continued pursuing the case.
The SC rejected their claims and upheld Sandiganbayan's ruling, noting that Ligot's wife and children did not have independent income sources and said that the amortizations for condos under his sister's name were paid by the late general.
These circumstances indicate that Ligot was the true owner, even if the properties were under someone else's name, according to the high court.
"Under Republic Act No. 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 said.
“[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.”
Furthermore, the high court said that the unexplained wealth in the case are exempt from bank secrecy laws when bank deposits are subject of forfeiture.