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 (SALN) 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 also claimed Valencia’s declared house and lot in Parañaque was grossly undervalued and that Valencia maintained a lavish lifestyle as shown by credit card billings. The Ombudsman placed Valencia under preventive suspension and, after proceedings where Valencia waived his right to a formal investigation, found him guilty of Dishonesty. Valencia appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the Ombudsman’s decision and nullified the preventive suspension order. The Office of the Ombudsman then filed this petition.

ISSUE

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

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Ombudsman’s finding of guilt was not supported by substantial evidence.
The Court held that in administrative cases, the burden of proof lies with the complainant, and the standard is substantial evidence. The Ombudsman relied primarily on two pieces of evidence: (1) two Letters of Agreement regarding U.S. dollar time deposits, and (2) credit card statements from BPI. The Letters of Agreement, however, were not signed by Valencia and were thus mere unauthenticated scraps of paper with no probative value. They could not prove the existence of the alleged multi-million dollar deposits. Furthermore, the bank (BPI, which acquired FEBTC) refused to confirm the deposits, invoking bank secrecy laws as upheld in Marquez v. Desierto, due to the absence of a pending court case.
Regarding the credit card statements, the Court found they were mere photocopies submitted without authentication, violating the best evidence rule. They were therefore inadmissible as evidence to prove Valencia’s alleged lavish lifestyle. The charge of undervaluation of the house and lot also failed, as the complainant presented no competent evidence, such as a current appraisal, to contradict the acquisition cost and assessed value Valencia declared, which were supported by documentary evidence. The Ombudsman’s findings were based on mere speculation and unsubstantiated allegations, not on substantial evidence. Consequently, the preventive suspension order, which was based on the same weak evidence, was also properly nullified by the Court of Appeals.