G.R. No. 262488 , June 14, 2023.
Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service, represented by Jesus S. Bueno and Reynalito L. Lazaro, Petitioner, vs. Office of the Ombudsman and Christopher L. Patricio, Customs Operations Officer II, Bureau of Customs, Respondents.

FACTS

The Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service (DOF-RIPS) conducted a lifestyle check on respondent Christopher L. Patricio, a Customs Operations Officer II at the Bureau of Customs. Based on his Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) from 2006 to 2016, DOF-RIPS alleged that Patricio’s assets were manifestly disproportionate to his lawful income, resulting in unexplained wealth amounting to ₱8,708,605.66. DOF-RIPS further alleged that Patricio and his wife engaged in several businesses, some of which were not disclosed in his SALNs. The investigation also revealed that Patricio failed to declare or falsely declared 10 real properties and 6 vehicles in his SALNs, did not declare any cash on hand or in bank from 2009 to 2016, and failed to secure necessary travel authorities for six trips abroad. Patricio countered that his SALN declarations were true and correct, assets were acquired lawfully, some properties were purchased by his deceased father without his knowledge, and vehicles were part of his buy-and-sell business. The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the criminal and forfeiture charges against Patricio, finding that DOF-RIPS failed to substantiate the allegation of disproportionate assets and that there was no willful intent to conceal assets. The Ombudsman denied DOF-RIPS’s motion for reconsideration, prompting the filing of the present Petition for Certiorari.

ISSUE

Did the Ombudsman act with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the charges against Patricio?

RULING

The Petition is partly meritorious. The Court found that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the charges for violation of Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) but not in dismissing the charges for violation of Section 7 of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and Articles 171 and 183 of the Revised Penal Code (Falsification and Perjury).
The Court clarified that while it generally does not interfere with the Ombudsman’s determination of probable cause, it may do so when grave abuse of discretion is present. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Regarding the charge for violation of Section 8 of RA 6713 (duty to disclose and divest), the Ombudsman’s dismissal constituted grave abuse of discretion. The law imposes a mandatory duty on public officials to disclose and divest themselves of any business interest within thirty days from assumption of office. Patricio’s admission of engaging in a buy-and-sell business, coupled with his failure to disclose it in his SALNs and to divest, established a prima facie violation. The Ombudsman’s failure to recognize this clear legal obligation was a patent evasion of a positive duty.
However, for the charges under Section 7 of RA 3019 (unexplained wealth) and Articles 171 and 183 of the RPC (falsification and perjury), the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. For unexplained wealth, the Ombudsman correctly considered the loans and other sources of income presented by Patricio, which could explain the acquisition of assets. The Court noted that a mere disparity between income and assets is not sufficient for prosecution; the state must prove that the assets are manifestly disproportionate. For falsification and perjury, the element of willful intent to deceive was not sufficiently established. Patricio provided explanations for the omissions and misdeclarations in his SALNs (e.g., properties bought by his father without his knowledge, reliance on his father’s statement of acquisition cost, properties held in trust for his children). The Ombudsman’s finding that these were not done with malicious intent was within its discretion and supported by the evidence.
The case was remanded to the Ombudsman for further proceedings solely on the charge for violation of Section 8 of RA 6713.