The Supreme Court has ruled that wealth exceeding a public official's lawful income is presumed ill-gotten and can be forfeited, even if registered under others' names. This decision upholds the forfeiture of assets belonging to retired Lt. Gen. Jacinto Ligot and his family. The ruling reinforces anti-corruption measures under Republic Act 1379.
In a decision by its Third Division, the Supreme Court upheld the Sandiganbayan's order forfeiting properties, bank deposits, and investment accounts linked to retired Lt. Gen. Jacinto Ligot. Ligot, who served as a commissioned comptroller in the Armed Forces of the Philippines from 1970 until his 2004 retirement, faced scrutiny after the Ombudsman conducted a lifestyle check.
The check revealed that Ligot's Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth from 1982 to 2003 did not match his actual properties or those of his close family members. This prompted a forfeiture petition before the Sandiganbayan, naming Ligot, his wife, children, sister, and brother-in-law as alleged fronts for concealing assets.
The Sandiganbayan identified undeclared properties worth P102 million, including condominium units in Makati City and Taguig City registered under relatives but paid for by Ligot and his wife. Bank deposits and investments totaling P53 million were also deemed disproportionate to Ligot's declared income. The court ordered their forfeiture as unlawfully acquired.
Ligot and his family petitioned the Supreme Court, claiming the assets were legitimately owned by relatives and not disproportionate to family income. However, the high court rejected these arguments, noting that Ligot's wife and children lacked independent income sources yet held significant assets.
Citing Republic Act 1379, the Supreme Court stated that properties manifestly out of proportion to a public officer's lawful income are presumed illegally acquired. This presumption extends to assets hidden or transferred to others if true ownership traces back to the official. "[RA] 1379 would be rendered ineffectual if the registration of properties in the name of third persons would suffice to forestall the presumption under Section 2 of the law from arising," the court said.
The ruling also clarified that unexplained wealth proceedings are exempt from bank secrecy laws when deposits are subject to forfeiture.