Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

Florencio Tumbocon Miraflores and Ma. Lourdes Martin Miraflores vs.

Office of the
Ombudsman and Field Investigation Office
GR Nos. 238102 & 238223 / January 6, 2020 / Lazaro-Javier, J.:
The OMB alleged that Sps Florencio and Martin Miraflores amassed wealth
disproportionate to their legitimate incomes. It also alleged that: (1) the spouses’ 2001-
2009 SALN declarations have P4,665,938.02 change in their net worth, while their
estimated total compensation income amounted to P4,920,519.00; (2) the computation
of the real properties were not consistent which affected the actual net worth of the
spouses, which upon re-computation amounted to P10,237,518.012; (3) using the
recomputed net worth less their known income, there is a total of P5,316,999.02
unexplained wealth; (4) the spouses either overvalued, undervalued, or did not declare
some of the properties registered under their names, such as residential land with
improvements in QC amounting to P242,620.00 and P50,000 for improvements but based
on the annotations it amounts to P1,500,000.00, a Mitsubishi Pajero, Toyota Fortuner,
and Toyota Hi-Ace that were overvalued by P90,200.00, P118,000.00, and P45,000
respectively, and the undeclared Izusu Elf,Toyota Pick-Up, Nissa Safari Wagon, and
Kawasaki Motorcycle amounting to P708,400.00; (5) Lourdes acquired shares of stocks
from RBII in 1989 amounting to P6,497,200.00 but was declared only in their 2008 and
2009 SALNs; (6) their liabilities were either overstated or declared despite being paid.
The Sps denied the accusations. They alleged that the complaint disregarded their
incomes from their assets, financial interests in their rural banking business, the incomes
of their adult children, and other remunerations. Also, the Sps claimed that the
inconsistencies in their acquisition of properties were due to the changes in the SALN
form prescribed by CSC. With respect to the undeclared cars, they claimed that such
were already given to persons who had served their family for many years.
Allegedly, while their SALNs did not provide every minute detail of information, they,
however, provided all necessary data following the detailed and complete requirement of
RA 6713. As SALNs were prepared in good faith, the difficulty in determining their net
worth and income should not operate to disregard the legal income from them.
A joint resolution was shown containing the summary of the Sps’s SALN. The OMB found
probable cause for violation of RA 3019 in relation to RA 6713. The OMB held that the
Sps violated the rule on submission of compete and accurate SALNs and their claims are
best self-serving.
The Sps filed for motion for reconsideration and nullity of Joint resolution claiming that:
(1) the re-computation is erroneous and inaccurate and their right to be informed of the
charges against them was violated; (2) the criminal liability related to SALNs had already
prescribed; (3) they did not acquire any property grossly disproportionate to their salaries;
(4) there is no proof that the entries in their SALNs were intended to mislead or deceive;
(5) they had valid justification for their undeclared assets; and (6) “net-worth-to-income-
discrepancy” analysis cannot support the finds of probable cause.
1) Whether or not the OMB gravely abuse its discretion when it founds probable cause
against Sps. Miraflores for violation of Sec. 8 of RA 3019, in relation to Sec. 7 of RA
6713 and for forfeiture of unlawfully acquired properties under RA 1379. (YES)
2) Whether or not the OMB violated Sps. Miraflores’ right to be sufficiently informed of
the charges against them. (NO)
3) Whether or not the OMB violated Sps. Miraflores’ right to speedy disposition of the
cases which allegedly got resolved only 8 years after their investigation commenced.
4) Whether or not the ruling of CA (that cleared the Sps of any administrative liability)
affect the present criminal complaints against Sps. Miraflores. (NO)
1) Sps. Miraflores did not denied that they bought the undeclared vehicles under their
own name and claimed, however, that they no longer own them because they already
conveyed them gratis et amore. In this regard, the Sps submitted to OMB the letter
acknowledging receipt of the vehicles by the alleged beneficiaries.

We agree with the OMB that these documents, as worded, do not alter the fact
that it was petitioners themselves who bought the vehicles in their own name and
with their own funds. They have not even shown that these vehicles are no longer
registered in their names after they allegedly conveyed them in favor of the so-
called “beneficiaries”. Consequently, there is merit to the finding of the OMB that
these affidavits, standing alone, do not negate, nay, justify petitioners’ failure to
declare them in their SALNs for 2001 – 2009. At any rate, whether these affidavits
reflect the truth is a question of fact which the court, not being a trier of facts, cannot
take cognizance of.

Under Sec. 7 of RA 3019, every public officer is directed to file a true, detailed, and
sworn statement of assets and liabilities, including among others, a statement of
the amounts and sources of his or her income and/or earnings.

2) Petitioners had not once, but twice responded to FIO’s charges through their sixteen-
page Joint Counter-Affidavit, Seventeen-page Joint Position Paper and their two-inch
thick documents as attachments. These submissions certainly could not have come
from parties who did not sufficiently understand the charges hurled against them.

3) This issue is being raised for the first time here and now. Even then, aside from
claiming here that the case had dragged for 8 years before OMB, petitioners have not
cited the specific attendant circumstances in support of their lamentation, if any.
4) While indeed the CA had cleared petitioners of any administrative liability for serious
dishonestly and grave misconduct based on the same acts for which they are
criminally charged, the same does not affect the finding of probable cause against
them here. For one, there is no showing that the decision of the CA is final and
executory. For another, although the criminal case involved the same acts or
omissions complained of in the administrative cases, petitioners’ absolution in the
latter does not bar their prosecution in the former, and vice versa. The quantum of
evidence required in one is different from quantum of evidence required in the other.