G.R. No. 220632 and 220634, November 06, 2019
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE REVENUE INTEGRITY PROTECTION SERVICE (DOF-RIPS), PETITIONER, VS. EDITA CRUZ YAMBAO AND OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

The Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service (DOF-RIPS) filed a Joint Complaint-Affidavit before the Office of the Ombudsman against Edita Cruz Yambao, a Customs Operation Officer III at the Bureau of Customs. The complaint accused her of falsification of public documents, perjury, violation of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), and violation of Republic Act No. 1379 . DOF-RIPS alleged that based on a comparative analysis of Yambao’s Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) and her expenditures: (1) she did not file her SALN in 2000 and 2003; (2) she amassed wealth grossly disproportionate to her income; and (3) she made false, misleading, and incomplete statements in her SALNs over the years. Specific allegations included cash purchases of expensive real properties in Parañaque City despite a modest salary, acquisition of a luxury vehicle, extensive foreign travels, inconsistent declarations about her husband’s employment and business interests, and a misdeclared piggery farm. The Office of the Ombudsman, in a Joint Resolution, dismissed all charges, finding insufficient evidence to prove non-filing of SALNs, that her SALN disclosures were substantially true without deliberate intent to falsify, and that DOF-RIPS failed to substantiate the claim of unexplained wealth, particularly by not proving Yambao was the family’s sole breadwinner. DOF-RIPS’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting it to file a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.

ISSUE

Whether or not public respondent the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in determining that no probable cause exists to charge private respondent Edita Cruz Yambao with any of the offenses charged by petitioner Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition for Certiorari and affirmed the Office of the Ombudsman’s Joint Resolution and Joint Order. The Court held that as a general rule, it does not interfere with the Ombudsman’s discretion in determining probable cause absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion, meaning an act done in an “arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or despotic manner.” The Court found no such abuse. The Ombudsman’s findings were based on the evidence: Yambao presented proof she filed her 2000 and 2003 SALNs; discrepancies in her SALN declarations (e.g., property values, vehicle purchase date, business interests) did not establish a deliberate intent to falsify; and the allegation of unexplained wealth under Republic Act No. 1379 was not proven, as DOF-RIPS failed to establish that Yambao’s family income came solely from her salary, ignoring her husband’s potential income. The Ombudsman correctly required clear and convincing evidence for a prima facie case of ill-gotten wealth, which was not met. The Court emphasized that the purpose of SALN requirements is to defeat corruption, and providing an opportunity to correct a defect before sanction aligns with this purpose.