THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 233347. January 10, 2018.]
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE-REVENUE INTEGRITY PROTECTION SERVICE, petitioner,vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND ESTER GRAFIL SESE, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 10, 2018, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 233347 (Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service vs. Office of the Ombudsman and Ester Grafil Sese). — For the consideration of the Court is a Petition for Certiorari filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking to set aside the Joint Resolution dated October 26, 2016 1 and Order dated May 31, 2017 2 of the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-C-C-14-0264, for violation of Republic Act 3019, Republic Act 6713, and Articles 171 and 183 of the Revised Penal Code as amended, and OMB-C-F-14-0007, for Unexplained Wealth, entitled Department of Finance — Revenue Integrity Protection Service, Represented by: Reynalito L. Lazaro and Jesus S. Bueno v. Ester Grafil Sese, Salary Grade 4, Administrative Aide IV, Bureau of Customs, Islang Puting Bato, Tondo, Manila. The Office of the Ombudsman found probable cause to charge Ester Grafil Sese in the first case but found insufficient evidence to charge her under the second case.
The Facts
Petitioner Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service, filed a Joint Complaint-Affidavit dated August 29, 2014 alleging that Respondent Ester Grafil Sese violated Republic Acts 3019, 6713, 1379 and Articles 171 and 183 of the Revised Penal Code. It was primarily alleged in the Complaint that Sese acquired properties grossly disproportionate to her and her family's salary while failing to, at the same time, report the same in her Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN), and also failing to report her husband's business interests.
After the parties submitted their respective pleadings, the Ombudsman issued the Joint Resolution dated October 26, 2016 where it found that Sese failed to declare or misdeclared the following properties in her SALN: 3
|
Property Acquisition |
Date of Acquisition |
Evidentiary Documents |
SALN Involved |
|
1. Mitsubishi Lancer with Plate No. UUF-736 |
August 18, 1997
|
1. Vehicle Invoice dated August 18, 1997 2. Release of Chattel Mortgage dated August 21, 2000 3. Certificate of Registration dated August 22, 1997 |
1. Falsely declared as liability in 2000, 2001 and 2002 SALNs 2. Falsely declared its acquisition cost in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 SALNs (sold on January 30, 2010). |
|
2. Isuzu Elf Aluminum Van |
August 16, 2004 |
1. Deed of Sale dated August 16, 2004 2. Certificate of Registration dated August 20, 2004 |
1. Not declared in her 2004 and 2005 SALNs. (sold on June 10, 2005) |
|
3. Honda Wave Motorcycle |
April 6, 2004 |
1. Sales Invoice dated April 6, 2004 2. Certificate of Registration dated April 27, 2005 |
1. Not declared in her 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 SALNs |
|
4. Pistol, Girsan, caliber .45 |
Registered with Firearms and Explosives Office in October 2012 |
1. Certification issued by Firearms and Explosives Office dated June 13, 2014 |
1. Not declared in her 2012 and 2013 SALNs |
|
5. Pistol, Coarm, Caliber .45 |
Registered with Firearms and Explosives Office in October 2012 |
1. Certification issued by Firearms and Explosives Office dated June 13, 2014 |
1. Not declared in her 2012 and 2013 SALNs |
|
6. Toyota Hilux with Plate No. NOE-349 |
January 14, 2010 |
1. Vehicle Sales Invoice dated January 14, 2010 2. Certificate of Registration dated January 19, 2010 |
1. Not declared in 2010 SALN |
|
7. House and lot |
February 2, 2002 |
1. TCT No. 171820 2. Deed of Sale |
1. Not declared in 2002 SALN |
The Office of the Ombudsman concluded thus:
For falsifying, and for failure to declare her properties in her 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2012 and 2013 SALNs, this Office finds probable cause to indict respondents for eleven counts of falsification. For her false declaration in her 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2012 and 2013 SALNs, this Office also finds probable cause to indict Sese for six counts of violation of Section 8 of RA 6713. 4
However, it also made this ruling:
As to the charge of violation of Republic Act 1379, this Office finds that complainant failed to present sufficient evidence showing the correct compensation and other remunerations annually received by the respondent from the BOC. This Office therefore finds no reasonable ground to institute petitioner for forfeiture against the respondents. 5
From this latter ruling of the Ombudsman, the petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration. This was denied by the Ombudsman in the assailed Order dated May 31, 2017.
Hence, the instant petition.
Issue
Whether forfeiture proceedings under RA 1379 should proceed against Sese.
Ruling of the Court
The petition has no merit.
Petitioner repeatedly alleges in the Petition that the burden of showing that she had sufficient income to cover her property acquisitions rests on Sese herself. Thus, petitioner argues: aScITE
67. The burden of proof was on Respondent Sese to dispute the prima facie presumption that they acquired unexplained wealth. She must show by clear and convincing evidence that she and her husband had other sufficient income to finance their property acquisitions and expenses. 6
xxx xxx xxx
Respondent Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion when it did not require Respondent SESE to adduce evidence of her lawful sources of income through a Petition for Forfeiture of Unexplained Wealth. 7
Such contention is unsupported by law.
Section 2 of RA 1379, 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, provides the required information that must be presented to justify the initiation of forfeiture proceedings:
Section 2. Filing of petition. Whenever any public officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency an amount of property which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property, said property shall be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired. x x x (Emphasis supplied)
Evidently, the burden of proof is on complainant to prove that the public officer or employee's lawful income cannot support his property acquisitions and expenses.
Here, the only evidence adduced by petitioner is the Service Record of Sese providing her base salary at the Bureau of Customs. However, as may be shown in a Certification dated November 7, 2014 8 issued by the Bureau of Customs, while Sese's base salary then was PhP138,228.00 as shown in her service record, this is not all that she received as compensation from the Bureau. She also received Additional Compensation, Personal Economic Relief Allowance, Clothing Allowance, Productivity Bonus, Cash Gift, and Performance Bonus raising her annual compensation from her work to PhP190,747.00. Clearly, therefore, petitioner has failed to present sufficient evidence to establish respondent Sese's lawful income. The law is clear that it is the complainant that must present such evidence to the Ombudsman, not the respondent.
Having failed to establish the lawful income of respondent Sese, the Ombudsman cannot be considered to have acted with grave abuse of discretion in not charging her with violation of RA 1379. As stated in Republic v. The Heirs of Spouses Florentino and Pacencia Molinyawe:
For the extraordinary remedy of certiorari to be justified, the petitioner must satisfactorily establish that the court gravely abused its discretion. Grave abuse of discretion is the capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment that effectively brings the acting entity outside the exercise of its proper jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be grave, as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and the abuse must be so patent and gross so as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as to be equivalent to having acted without jurisdiction. 9
Verily, the instant petition must fail.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. The assailed Joint Resolution dated October 26, 2016 and Order dated May 31, 2017 of the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-C-C-14-0264 and OMB-C-F-14-0007 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 68-79.
2.Id. at 80-82.
3.Id. at 76-77.
4.Id. at 78.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 40-41.
7.Id. at 46.
8.Id. at 198.
9. G.R. No. 217120, April 18, 2016.