Cases: SALN

1. Atty. Navarro vs. Ombudsman, GR No. 210128, August 17, 2016  

FACTS:
Intelligence Officers Oscar Moratin et al., representing the DOF-RIPS, filed their Joint
Complaint-Affidavit before the Ombudsman against Navarro, for acts and omissions that are
deemed illegal, unjust, improper, and/or otherwise irregular or immoral. It was averred in the
said complaint that Navarro did not properly declare his assets in his SALNs; that Navarro did
not own any real property prior to his employment with the BIR in 1980; that he acquired his
real properties, including a resort and commercial buildings, in Baguio City and La Union; that,
even assuming they were declared under "Improvements," the amounts declared in his SALN
were miniscule, as the improvements constructed were two (2) multi-storey buildings and a two
storey building; and that he overstated his liabilities to decrease his networth and failed to
disclose his engagement in other forms of businesses. For said reason, it was the conclusion of
the DOF-RIPS that "his substantial real property ownership is manifestly out of proportion to
his lawful income.
The Ombudsman placed Navarro under preventive suspension pending investigation and
while awaiting the adjudication of the administrative complaint against him.
The Ombudsman rendered a decision finding Navarro guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct
and violation of R.A. No. 6713 and meted out the penalty of dismissal from the service with its
accessory penalties.
Navarro filed a motion for reconsideration claiming that he was deprived of his right to due
process, but it was denied.
Aggrieved, he filed a petition for review under Rule 43 before the CA.
CA denied. The CA found that Navarro failed to comply with his obligation as a government
employee to truthfully disclose in detail all of his business interests in his SALN. The CA noted
that in his SALNs submitted from 1998-2002, Navarro simply lumped together: the declared
properties based on their location, which went against the legal mandate for a government
employee to submit a true and detailed statement of his assets and liabilities. Moreover, he did
not disclose any of the business interests he and his wife were engaged in.

ISSUE:
Whether Navarro's failure to declare with particularity his assets and business interests in his
SALN was a sufficient ground to hold him administratively liable for the offenses of dishonesty
and grave misconduct, warranting his dismissal from the service.

RULING:
NO.
There was no substantial evidence showing any malice or intent to deceive on the part of
Navarro in accomplishing the questioned SALNS. Navarro would not have endeavoured to
produce voluminous documents to prove that he truthfully declared his properties, albeit
lumped together, if his intention was to conceal them. The documents he submitted showed the
veracity of the acquisitions he made and their respective costs as reflected in his SALNs. The
physical impression of the DOF-RIPS of what and how the properties actually looked, without
anything more concrete than mere conjectures that the said properties commanded a higher
value or that the amounts did not match the kind of buildings constructed thereon, would not
make Navarro's SALNs any less truthful.

The Court cannot help but observe that the charges filed by the DOFRIPS against Navarro, that
his SALNs bore misdeclarations, overdeclarations and nondeclarations, are based on mere
speculations and conjectures. a mere misdeclaration in the SALN does not automatically
amount to dishonesty. Only when the accumulated wealth becomes manifestly
disproportionate to the income or other sources of income of the public officer/employee and he
fails to properly account or explain his other sources of income, does he become susceptible to
dishonesty. 39 Although there appeared to have a prima facie evidence giving rise to the
presumption of accumulation of wealth disproportionate to his income, Navarro was able to
overcome such presumption by coming out with documentary evidence to prove his financial
capacity to make the subject acquisitions and to prove that the amounts he stated in his SALNs
were true. It should be understood that the laws on SALN aim to curtail the acquisition of
unexplained wealth. Where the source of the undisclosed wealth can be properly accounted for,
then it is "explained wealth" which the law does not penalize.

However, evident bad faith was wanting on the part of Navarro. Although it is the duty of
every public official/employee to properly accomplish his/her SALN, it is not too much to ask
for the head of the appropriate department/office to have called his attention should there be
any incorrectness in his SALN. The DOF, which has supervision over the BIR, could have
directed Navarro to correct his SALN. This is in consonance with the above-quoted Review and
Compliance Procedure under R.A. No. 6713, as well as its Implementing Rules and Regulations
(IRR), providing for the procedure for review of statements to determine whether they have
been properly accomplished. To reiterate, it is provided in the IRR that in the event authorities
determine that a SALN is not properly filed, they should inform the reporting individual and
direct him to take the necessary corrective action.

In this case, however, Navarro was not given the chance to rectify the nebulous entries in his
SALNs. Instead, the DOF, through its RIPS, filed a complaint-affidavit with the Ombudsman on
the ground that his SALN was "generalized." Regardless, Navarro was able to show and explain
the details of his SALN when he submitted his counter-affidavit with the necessary documents,
to which the DOF-RIPS and the Ombudsman and the CA coldly closed their eyes.

As there was only a failure to give proper attention to a task expected of an employee because of
either carelessness or indifference, Navarro should have been informed so he could have made
the necessary explanation or correction.
The Court is mindful of the duty of public officials and employees to disclose their assets,
liabilities and net worth accurately and truthfully. In keeping up with the constantly changing
and fervent society and for the purpose of eliminating corruption in the government, the new
SALN is stricter, especially with regard to the details of real properties, to address the pressing
issue of transparency among those in the government service. Although due regard is given to
those charged with the duty of filtering malicious elements in the government service, it must
still be stressed that such duty must be exercised with great caution as grave consequences
result therefrom. Thus, some leeway should be accorded the public officials. They must be
given the opportunity to explain any prima facie appearance of discrepancy. To repeat, where his
explanation is adequate, convincing and verifiable, his assets cannot be considered unexplained
wealth or illegally obtained.

2. Del Rosario vs. People of the Philippines, GR No. 199930, June 27, 2018

FACTS:
On October 28, 2004, the General Investigation Bureau-A of the Office of the Ombudsman
brought a complaint charging the petitioner with the violation of Section 8 of R.A. No. 6713;
dishonesty; grave misconduct; and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for her
failure to file her SALNs for the years 1990 and 1991.

On March 11, 2008, the Office of the Ombudsman criminally charged the petitioner in the MeTC
with two violations of RA No. 6713 for failing to file his detailed SALN for years 1990 and 1991.
On November 19, 2008, the petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the criminal cases on the ground of
prescription of the offenses.8

On September 18, 2009,9 the MeTC granted the Motion to Quash.

The RTC upheld the assailed orders of the MeTC.14

Undeterred, the State elevated the decision of the RTC to the Sandiganbayan, arguing that the
RTC had erred in ruling that the eight-year prescriptive period for violation of Section 8 of R.A.
No. 6713 commenced to run on the day of the commission of the violations, not from the
discovery of the offenses.15
However, the Sandiganbayan overturned the decision and ruled that the eight-year prescriptive
period for violation of Section 8 of R.A. No. 6713 commenced to run from the discovery of the
offenses.

Issue:
Whether or not the eight-year prescriptive period for the offense the petitioner committed in
violation of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees) should be reckoned from the filing of the detailed sworn statement of assets,
liabilities and net worth (SALN), or from the discovery of the non-filing thereof.

Ruling of the Court

No, the eight-year prescriptive period for the offense the petitioner committed in violation of
RA No. 6713 should be reckoned from the filing of the detailed SALN.

The Sandiganbayan erred in applying the discovery rule to the petitioner's cases.

Section 8 of R.A. No. 6713 mandates the submission of the sworn SALNs by all public officials
and employees, stating therein all the assets, liabilities, net worth and financial and business
interests of their spouses, and of their unmarried children under 18 years of age living in their
households. Paragraph (A) of Section 8 sets three deadlines for the submission of the sworn
SALNs, specifically:(a) within 30 days from the assumption of office by the officials or
employees; (b) on or before April 30 of every year thereafter; and (c) within 30 days after the
separation from the service of the officials or employees.

R.A. No. 6713 does not expressly state the prescriptive period for the violation of its
requirement for the SALNs. Hence, Act No. 3326 – the law that governs the prescriptive periods
for offenses defined and punished under special laws that do not set their own prescriptive
periods24 – is controlling. Section 1 of Act No. 3326 provides:

Section 1. Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless otherwise provided in such acts,
prescribe in accordance with the following rules: (a) after a year for offenses punished only by a
fine or by imprisonment for not more than one month, or both; (b) after four years for those
punished by imprisonment for more than one month, but less than two years; (c) after eight
years for those punished by imprisonment for two years or more, but less than six years;  and
(d) after twelve years for any other offense punished by imprisonment for six years or more,
except the crime of treason, which shall prescribe after twenty years. Violations penalized by
municipal ordinances shall prescribe after two months.

The complaint charging the petitioner with the violations was filed only on October 28, 2004, or
13 years after the April 30, 1991 deadline for the submission of the SALN for 1990, and 12 years
after the April 30, 1992 deadline for the submission of the SALN for 1991. With the offenses
charged against the petitioner having already prescribed after eight years in accordance with
Section 1 of Act No. 3326, the informations filed against the petitioner were validly quashed.

The relevant legal provision on the reckoning of the period of prescription is Section 2 of Act
No. 3326, to wit:
Section 2. Prescription of violation penalized by special law shall begin to run from the day of
the commission of the violation of the law, and if the violation be not known at the time from
the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and
punishment.
Under Section 2, there are two modes of determining the reckoning point when prescription of
an offense runs. The first, to the effect that prescription shall "run from the day of the
commission of the violation of the law," is the general rule. We have declared in this regard that
the fact that any aggrieved person entitled to an action has no knowledge of his right to sue or
of the facts out of which his right arises does not prevent the running of the prescriptive
period.25 The second mode is an exception to the first, and is otherwise known as the discovery
rule.

An evaluation of the some jurisprudence on the matter reveals the following guidelines in the
determination of the reckoning point for the period of prescription of violations of RA 3019,
viz.:
1. As a general rule, prescription begins to run from the date of the commission of
the offense.
2. If the date of the commission of the violation is not known, it shall be counted
form the date of discovery thereof.
3. In determining whether it is the general rule or the exception that should apply
in a particular case, the availability or suppression of the information relative to
the crime should first be determined.

If the necessary information, data, or records based on which the crime could be discovered
is readily available to the public, the general rule applies. Prescription shall, therefore, run
from the date of the commission of the crime.

Otherwise, should martial law prevent the filing thereof or should information about the
violation be suppressed, possibly through connivance, then the exception applies and the
period of prescription shall be reckoned from the date of discovery thereof. 

Conformably with the foregoing, we cannot apply the discovery rule or the blameless ignorance
doctrine to the criminal charges against the petitioner herein.

3. Ombudsman vs. Racho, GR No. 185685, January 31, 2011

FACTS:, In 2005, Racho, then Chief of the Special Investigation Division of the BIR, Cebu City
was found guilty of dishonesty by the Joint Order of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman found
that Racho did not declare bank deposits in his SALN.

In his defense, Racho denied sole ownership of the bank deposits. In the joint sworn statement,
it was alleged that he and his siblings planned to put up a corporation registered with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on April 30, 1999. To prove their agreement, Racho
presented a Special Power of Attorney, dated January 28, 1993, wherein his brothers and
nephew designated him as the trustee of their investments in the business venture they were
intending to put up and authorized him to deposit their money into his questioned bank
accounts to defray business-related expenses. Racho averred that his wife also set up a small
business named "Nal Pay Phone Services" registered under the Department of Trade and
Industry (DTI) on April 30, 1999.

ISSUE: Whether Racho’s non-disclosure of the bank deposits in his SALN constitutes
dishonesty.
HELD:YES, Section 7 and Section 8 of Republic Act (R.A.) 301938 explain the nature and
importance of accomplishing a true, detailed and sworn SALN, thus:

Sec. 7. Statement of Assets and Liabilities. — Every public officer, within thirty days after
assuming office, and thereafter, on or before the fifteenth day of April following the close of
every calendar year, as well as upon the expiration of his term of office, or upon his resignation
or separation from office, shall prepare and file with the office of corresponding Department
Head, or in the case of a Head Department or chief of an independent office, with the Office of
the President, a true, detailed and sworn statement of the amounts and sources of his income,
the amounts of his personal and family expenses and the amount of income taxes paid for the
next preceding calendar year: Provided, That public officers assuming office less than two
months before the end of the calendar year, may file their first statement on or before the
fifteenth day of April following the close of said calendar year.

Sec. 8. Prima Facie Evidence of and Dismissal Due to Unexplained Wealth. — If in accordance
with the provisions of Republic Act Numbered One Thousand Three Hundred Seventy-Nine, a
public official has been found to have acquired during his incumbency, whether in his name or
in the name of other persons, an amount of property and/or money manifestly out of proportion
to his salary and to his other lawful income, that fact shall be ground for dismissal or removal.
Properties in the name of the spouse and dependents of such public official may be taken into
consideration, when their acquisition through legitimate means cannot be satisfactorily shown.
Bank deposits in the name of or manifestly excessive expenditures incurred by the public
official, his spouse or any of their dependents including but not limited to activities in any club
or association or any ostentatious display of wealth including frequent travel abroad of a non-
official character by any public official when such activities entail expenses evidently out of
proportion to legitimate income, shall likewise be taken into consideration in the enforcement of
this Section, notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary. The circumstances
hereinabove mentioned shall constitute valid ground for the administrative suspension of the
public official concerned for an indefinite period until the investigation of the unexplained
wealth is completed.

Complimentary to the above-mentioned provisions, Section 2 of R.A. 1379 states that "whenever

any public officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency an amount of property
which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his
other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property, said property shall be
presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired."
By mandate of law, every public official or government employee is required to make a
complete disclosure of his assets, liabilities and net worth in order to suppress any questionable
accumulation of wealth because the latter usually results from non-disclosure of such matters.
Hence, a public official or employee who has acquired money or property manifestly
disproportionate to his salary or his other lawful income shall be prima facie presumed to have
illegally acquired it.

It should be emphasized, however, that mere misdeclaration of the SALN does not
automatically amount to dishonesty. Only when the accumulated wealth becomes manifestly
disproportionate to the employee’s income or other sources of income and the public
officer/employee fails to properly account or explain his other sources of income, does he
become susceptible to dishonesty because when a public officer takes an oath or office, he or she
binds himself or herself to faithfully perform the duties of the office and use reasonable skill and
diligence, and to act primarily for the benefit of the public. Thus, in the discharge of duties, a
public officer is to use that prudence, caution and attention which careful persons use in the
management of their affairs.

4. Daplas vs. DOF, et. al., GR No. 221153, April 17, 2017

Solicitation of gifts
1. Samson vs. Restrivera, GR No. 178454, March 28, 2011
FACTS:
Petitioner is a government employee, being a department head of the Population
Commission with office at the Provincial Capitol, Cavite.
Petitioner agreed to help her friend, respondent Restrivera, to have the latter’s land
located in Carmona, Cavite, registered under the Torrens System. Petitioner accepted ₱50,000
from respondent to cover the initial expenses for the titling of respondent’s land. However,
petitioner failed to accomplish her task because it was found out that the land is government
property. When petitioner failed to return the ₱50,000, respondent sued her for estafa.
Respondent also filed an administrative complaint for grave misconduct or conduct
unbecoming a public officer against petitioner before the Office of the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman found petitioner guilty of violating Section 4(b) of R.A. No. 6713 and
suspended her from office for six months without pay. The Ombudsman ruled that petitioner
failed to abide by the standard set in Section 4(b) of R.A. No. 6713 and deprived the government
of the benefit of committed service when she embarked on her private interest to help
respondent secure a certificate of title over the latter’s land.
Upon motion for reconsideration, the Ombudsman reduced the penalty to three months
suspension without pay. According to the Ombudsman, petitioner’s acceptance of respondent’s
payment created a perception that petitioner is a fixer. Her act fell short of the standard of
personal conduct required by Section 4(b) of R.A. No. 6713 that public officials shall endeavor to
discourage wrong perceptions of their roles as dispensers or peddlers of undue patronage.
 The CA on appeal affirmed the Ombudsman’s Order. The CA ruled that contrary to
petitioner’s contentions, the Ombudsman has jurisdiction even if the act complained of is a
private matter. The CA stressed that Section 4(b) of R.A. No. 6713 requires petitioner to perform
and discharge her duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and
skill, and to endeavor to discourage wrong perceptions of her role as a dispenser and peddler of
undue patronage.

ISSUE:
Whether the CA commit grave abuse of discretion in finding petitioner administratively
liable despite the dismissal of the estafa case.

RULING:
NO. It is settled that administrative cases may proceed independently of criminal
proceedings, and may continue despite the dismissal of the criminal charges.
For reneging on her promise to return aforesaid amount, petitioner is guilty of conduct
unbecoming a public officer.
The Constitution categorically declares as follows:
SECTION 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at
all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity,
loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.
Petitioner should have complied with her promise to return the amount to respondent
after failing to accomplish the task she had willingly accepted. However, she waited until
respondent sued her for estafa, thus reinforcing the latter’s suspicion that petitioner
misappropriated her money. Although the element of deceit was not proven in the criminal case
respondent filed against the petitioner, it is clear that by her actuations, petitioner violated basic
social and ethical norms in her private dealings. Even if unrelated to her duties as a public
officer, petitioner’s transgression could erode the public’s trust in government employees, more
so because she holds a high position in the service.

Conflict of interest, etc.

1. Ombudsman vs. Santos, GR No. 166116, March 31, 2006

FACTS: On 1997, based on the following statements of witnesses and complaints, Principal
Santos was found guilty of dishonesty, violation of Sec. 4 (c) of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 6713
and grave misconduct.
1. falsifying her daily time record.
2. Harassing school teacher, employees and even parents of the pupils.
2.Taking several pieces of galvanized iron sheets used in the construction and repair of some
rooms and toilets at Lagro Elementary School.
3.Vicente Cue, Security Guard at Lagro Elementary School, testified that on September 5, 1999,
his wife made an emergency call at the school but respondent refused to give the call to him.
Answering the charges, Santos explained that it was her daily routine upon arrival at the school
to inspect its outer premises before entering the school grounds, to see if the school fence is
clean and garbage-free. The security guard only logs in the time of respondent’s entry into the
school grounds as her arrival time. As regards the incident on August 20, 1997, respondent
stated that she sought permission from Mrs. Paz T. Quejada, District Supervisor, School District
X, to attend a Linggo ng Wika Celebration at Golden Child Montessori because she is also an
owner/incorporator arguing that it did not violate any existing law.

Santos was also the President and Chairman of the Golden Child Montessori, and that she
handles the finances, keeps the bank account, signs checks and issues memoranda for and in
behalf of the school.

ISSUE: Whether Santos is liable.

HELD:YES, Santos stands administratively charged with, among others, the falsification of her
Form 48; of being one of the Owners/Incorporators of a private school; of having oppressed and
harassed school teachers and employees; and of theft of school property.

On the charge of Oppression/Harassment, Santos actuations definitely runs [sic] counter to the
established norms of conduct and ethical standards for public officials who, "must act with
justice and shall not discriminate against anyone". Moreover, her action violates the standard of
personal conduct, which mandates all civil servants to "respect the rights of others, and to
refrain from doing acts contrary to good morals and customs". Accordingly, respondent
SANTOS appears to be liable for violation of Republic Act No. 6713.

Santos having misappropriated government property for her own personal benefit which
constitutes Grave Misconduct, and for which the respondent may be held liable.

Contrary to the ruling of the Ombudsman, By actively participating in the management of

Golden Child Montessori, a private school, while serving as Principal of Lagro Elementary
School, a government school, respondent has transgressed the provisions of Section 7 (b) (2) of
R.A. 6713 where as prohibits all public officials and employees from engaging in the private
practice of their profession, unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided, that such
practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions; 

Indeed, public servants are expected to devote their undivided attention to their public duties,
to give the tax payers the competent and excellent service that they deserve. In fact, Section 4 of
the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees enjoins said
officials and employees to always uphold public interest over and above personal interest.