G.R. Nos. 238103 & 238223, January 06, 2020
FLORENCIO TUMBOCON MIRAFLORES AND MA. LOURDES MARTIN MIRAFLORES, PETITIONERS, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

This is a petition for certiorari assailing the Joint Resolution and Joint Order of the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) in OMB-V-C-15-0115 for violation of Section 7 of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) in relation to Section 8 of RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), and OMB-V-F-15-0001 for forfeiture of unlawfully acquired properties under RA 1379. The Field Investigation Office (FIO) alleged that petitioners, Spouses Florencio and Lourdes Miraflores, amassed wealth disproportionate to their legitimate incomes from 2001 to 2009. The FIO’s recomputation showed an increase in net worth of P10,237,518.02, against a total known income of P4,920,519.00, resulting in unexplained wealth of P5,316,999.02. Specific allegations included inconsistencies in declaring acquisition costs versus fair market values of real properties, overvaluation, undervaluation, or non-declaration of certain vehicles and shares of stock, and misdeclaration of liabilities. Petitioners countered that the FIO disregarded their income from assets (fish ponds, farm, coconut lands, rural bank), their adult children’s earnings, other remunerations, and loans of almost P20,000,000.00. They explained that some properties were inherited but co-owned, some assets were given to long-time family servants, and their SALNs were prepared in good faith. The OMB found probable cause for multiple counts of violation of Section 7 of RA 3019 in relation to Section 8 of RA 6713 and for forfeiture. On motion for reconsideration, the OMB affirmed with modification, reducing the counts against Florencio from nine to four on grounds of prescription.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of 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 under RA 1379.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause was based on substantial evidence, including the prima facie showing of a significant disparity between petitioners’ wealth increase and their legitimate income, as well as inconsistencies in their SALN declarations. The Court held that the determination of probable cause is an executive function, and in the absence of clear arbitrariness, the Court will not interfere. Petitioners’ defenses, such as the alleged disregard of other income sources and loans, involve matters of evidence best threshed out in a full-blown trial. The Ombudsman did not act capriciously or whimsically in evaluating the evidence and finding probable cause for the filing of the appropriate informations.