Customs executive faces forfeiture case over 'ill-gotten' wealth

MANILA, Philippines - The Office of the Ombudsman has asked the Manila Regional Trial Court to allow the forfeiture of alleged ill-gotten dollar bank accounts and other assets of a Bureau of Customs officer.

In a petition for “forfeiture of unlawfully acquired properties,” Assistant Ombudsman Pelagio Apostol asked the court to order Customs Operations Officer Manuel Valencia to explain his more than $3.8-million time deposits and real estate assets amounting to more than P1.2 million.

The Ombudsman said there was prima facie evidence that Valencia violated Republic Act 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

The Ombudsman’s Office said that the dollar deposits and assets are in excess of Valencia’s lawful and legitimate gross annual earnings of P47,622 in 1988 and P275,820 at present.

Based on his Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SAL), Valencia’s net worth was P875,070 as of Dec.31, 1999 and P975,070 in 2001.

In both SALs, respondent listed under assets and real properties a house and lot in Parañaque worth P1.2 million.

An investigation by the Ombudsman revealed that the real properties were all acquired in 1988 and that they actually consist of several parcels of land in the name of Valencia, all located in BF Homes in Parañaque.

Investigators also discovered two Letters of Agreement showing the US dollar time deposits with the old Far East Bank.

“Investigation conducted by the Central Management Information Office (CMIO), Department of Finance and the Office of the Ombudsman found that there is reasonable ground to believe that herein respondent amassed properties manifestly out of proportion to his salary as public employee as evidenced by the service record and his Statement of Assets and Liabilities for 1999 and 2001,” the petition stated.

The petition said that a public officer is a “special species bound by conventions and restrictions imposed not only by law but by the demand of public scrutiny and public accountability.”

“In choosing to become a public officer, it is his sworn duty to discharge his duties and functions diligently and honestly, in supreme obeisance to the Constitution and the laws and to the public interest which he is bound to serve,” the petition read.

“His actions, therefore, cannot simply be judged on what is normal and ordinary, precisely because he is not an ordinary citizens subject as he is to limitations not ordained for ordinary citizens,” said the petition.

“Public officials, therefore, cannot begrudge a concerned citizenry from making an outcry against what is perceived to be a violation of such trust,” the petition said.   – Sandy Araneta