PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION (PAGC) and THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT vs. SALVADOR A. PLEYTO, G.R. No.

176058, March 23, 2011

This case is about the dismissal of a department undersecretary for failure to declare in his Sworn Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) his wifes business interests and financial connections. On July 10, 2003 PAGC found Pleyto guilty as charged and recommended to the OP his dismissal with forfeiture of all government financial benefits and disqualification to re-enter government service. On January 29, 2004 the OP approved the recommendation. Pleyto filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied. He elevated the case to the Appelate Court which granted his petition. Hence, this petition for certiorari filed by PAGC and The Office of the President.

ISSUE: 1. Whether or not the CA erred in not finding Pleytos failure to indicate his spouses business interests in his SALNs a violation of Section 8 of R.A. 6713. 2. Whether or not the CA erred in finding that under the Review and Compliance Procedure, Pleyto should have first been allowed to correct the error in his SALNs before being charged for violation of R.A. 6713.

RULING: 1. Yes, Assuring the truth and accuracy of the answers in the SALN is the function of the filers oath that to the best of his knowledge and information, the data he provides in it constitutes the true statements of his assets, liabilities, net worth, business interests, and financial connections, including those of his spouse and unmarried children below 18 years of age. Any falsity in the SALN makes him liable for falsification of public documents under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code. 2. The law will not require the impossible, namely, that the Committee must ascertain the truth of all the information that the public officer or employee stated or failed to state in his SALNs and remind him of it. The DPWH affirms this fact in its certification The purpose of R.A. 6713 is to promote a high standard of ethics in public service. Public officials and employees shall at all times be accountable to the people and shall discharge their duties with utmost responsibility, integrity, competence, and loyalty, act with patriotism and justice, lead modest lives, and uphold public interest over personal interest.[31] The law expects public officials to be accountable to the people in the matter of their integrity and competence. Thus, the Court cannot interpret the Review and Compliance Procedure as transferring such accountability to the Committee.

FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR. vs. REPUBLIC rep. by the PCGG, G.R. No. 189434, April 25, 2012 IMELDA ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS vs. REPUBLIC, G.R. No. 189505

FACTS: These two consolidated Petitions filed under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure pray for the reversal of the 2 April 2009 Decision of the Sandiganbayan in Civil Case No. 0141. The anti-graft court granted the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by respondent Republic of the Philippines (Republic) and declared all assets and properties of Arelma, S.A., an entity created by the late Ferdinand E. Marcos, forfeited in favor of the government. On 17 December 1991, the Republic, through the PCGG, filed a Petition for Forfeiture before the Sandiganbayan pursuant to the forfeiture law, Republic Act No. 1379 (R.A. 1379) in relation to Executive Order Nos. 1, 2 and 14. Respondent Republic, through the PCGG and OSG, sought the declaration of Swiss bank accounts totaling USD 356 million (now USD 658 million), and two treasury notes worth USD 25 million and USD 5 million, as ill-gotten wealth. The Swiss accounts, previously held by five groups of foreign foundations, were deposited in escrow with the PNB, while the treasury notes were frozen by the BSP. ISSUE: Whether petitioner Republic complied with Section 3, subparagraphs c, d, and e of R.A. 1375; RULING: The court finds the claim that petitioners comply with subparagraphs c, d, and e above, because the latter allegedly never took into account the years when Ferdinand Marcos served as a war veteran with back pay, a practicing lawyer, a trader and investor, a congressman and senator to be a haphazard rehash of what has already been conclusively determined by the Sandiganbayan and the Supreme Court in the Swiss Deposits Decision. The alleged receivables from prior years were without basis, because Marcos never had a known law office nor any known clients, and neither did he file any withholding tax certificate that would prove the existence of a supposedly profitable law practice before he became President. R.A. 1379 provides that whenever any public officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency an amount of property manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer and to his other lawful income, said property shall be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired. The elements that must concur for thisprima facie presumption to apply are the following: (1) the offender is a public officer or employee; (2) he must have acquired a considerable amount of money or property during his incumbency; and (3) said amount is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and income from legitimately acquired property. Thus, in determining whether the presumption of ill-gotten wealth should be applied, the relevant period is incumbency, or the period in which the public officer served in that position. The amount of the public officers salary and lawful income is compared against any property or amount acquired for that same period. In the Swiss Deposits Decision, the Court ruled that petitioner Republic was able to establish the prima facie presumption that the assets and properties acquired by the Marcoses were manifestly and patently disproportionate to their aggregate salaries as public officials.