G.R. No. 183890, April 13, 2011.
Office of the Ombudsman, Petitioner, vs. Manuel P. Valencia, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Manuel P. Valencia, Jr., a Chief Customs Operations Officer, was charged administratively and criminally before the Office of the Ombudsman for alleged dishonesty and violation of Republic Act No. 1379 in relation to R.A. No. 3019. The complaint, filed by Napoleon P. Guerrero, alleged that Valencia’s sworn Statements of Assets and Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) for 1999 and 2001 did not reflect his true net worth. Specifically, Guerrero alleged that Valencia maintained two U.S. dollar time deposit accounts with Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) totaling millions of dollars, which were not declared. Guerrero attached Letters of Agreement referencing these accounts. The complaint also alleged that Valencia’s declared house and lot in Parañaque was grossly undervalued and that his credit card billings indicated a lavish lifestyle. The Ombudsman placed Valencia under preventive suspension. In his defense, Valencia claimed his assets were legitimately acquired from family business and through purchase, and he denied maintaining the alleged dollar deposits, pointing out that the Letters of Agreement did not bear his signature. The Ombudsman issued subpoenas to banks for records, but Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) invoked bank secrecy laws. The Ombudsman found Valencia guilty of Dishonesty. The Court of Appeals reversed the Ombudsman’s decision and nullified the preventive suspension order.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Ombudsman’s finding that respondent Manuel P. Valencia is guilty of Dishonesty based on his SALN declarations and the alleged undisclosed assets.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Ombudsman’s finding of dishonesty was not supported by substantial evidence. The alleged U.S. dollar time deposit accounts were not sufficiently proven; the Letters of Agreement were unsigned and unauthenticated, constituting inadmissible hearsay. The Ombudsman’s reliance on an affidavit from a BPI officer, which essentially stated no records of the specific accounts were found, did not prove the existence of the deposits. Regarding the real property, the declared acquisition cost in the SALN was supported by deeds of sale and tax declarations, and the complainant presented no competent evidence to prove undervaluation. The credit card billings, obtained via subpoena after Valencia had waived his right to a formal investigation, violated his right to due process as he was not given an opportunity to confront this evidence. The charge of dishonesty requires proof of a deliberate intent to mislead; mere inaccuracies in a SALN, absent proof of ill motive or willful disregard for truth, do not constitute dishonesty. The preventive suspension order was also correctly nullified as it was based on unsubstantiated charges.