G.R. No. 208183 , August 31, 2022
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Lt. Col. George Abonito Rabusa, SG-25, Ma. Debbie Arevalo Rabusa, and Felix Arevalo, Respondents.

FACTS

The Republic filed a Petition for Forfeiture under Republic Act No. 1379 against Lt. Col. George Rabusa, his spouse Ma. Debbie, and his father-in-law Felix Arevalo. The Republic alleged that Rabusa, during his active military service, amassed unexplained wealth. It presented evidence showing that from 1990 to 2003, Rabusa’s total expenses exceeded his declared salary and other income by millions of pesos. The Republic also listed numerous assets allegedly undeclared in Rabusa’s Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN), including corporate shares, vehicles, substantial bank deposits, insurance premium payments, and a house and lot registered under Arevalo’s name. Further, it detailed extensive foreign travels by Rabusa and his family.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the petition, finding the Republic failed to prove its case by preponderance of evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed this dismissal. The CA held that the Republic merely presented a summary of alleged discrepancies without demonstrating the specific illegal acts or sources of the wealth. It also ruled that certain evidence, like bank records obtained without a court order, violated the Bank Secrecy Law and was inadmissible. The Republic elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of the forfeiture petition for the Republic’s failure to prove by preponderance of evidence that the properties were unlawfully acquired.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court emphasized that in forfeiture proceedings under R.A. No. 1379 , the burden of proof rests upon the Republic to establish by preponderance of evidence that the properties in question constitute ill-gotten wealth. Preponderance of evidence requires that the evidence adduced by one side is more convincing and credible than that of the opposition.
The Court found that the Republic failed to meet this burden. Its evidence was largely circumstantial, primarily relying on a perceived disproportion between Rabusa’s declared income and his alleged assets and lifestyle. The Court ruled that mere disparity between income and expenditures or acquisitions, without more, is insufficient to justify forfeiture. The Republic did not substantiate how Rabusa participated in specific corrupt acts to amass the wealth. It did not present evidence tracing the alleged ill-gotten properties to any particular illegal transaction, bribe, kickback, or misuse of public funds. The presentation of a list of assets and travels, without proving their illicit origin, does not constitute preponderant evidence. Consequently, the presumption that the subject properties were lawfully acquired remained unrebutted. The dismissal of the forfeiture case was therefore proper.