Does a mere misdeclaration in the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) automatically amount to dishonesty? When does it become an act of dishonesty? These are the issues resolved by the Supreme Court (SC) in this case of Tony which may be useful in the current impeachment trial of the SC Chief Justice himself.
Tony was the Chief of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Special Investigation Division down south. Sometime in November 2001 an anonymous complaint was filed against him before the Ombudsman for alleged unexplained wealth. In support of said complaint bank certifications were submitted showing that he had bank deposits totaling almost P5.8 million.
Acting on the complaint, the Ombudsman required the BIR to submit Tony’s SALNs from 1995 to 1999. Upon submission, the Ombudsman found that Tony did not declare the bank deposits in his SALN. Accordingly, a complaint for Falsification of Public Document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, and for Dishonesty was filed against him by the fact finding investigator.
During the investigation of the charge, Tony denied sole ownership of the bank account by presenting a joint affidavit of his brothers and nephew dated December 18, 2004 alleging that they planned to put up a lending business and that his brothers and nephew designated him as trustee of their investment and authorized him to deposit their money in his questioned bank accounts to defray business-related expenses. To support such allegation Tony also presented a special power of attorney (SPA) dated January 28, 1993 where he likewise averred that he and his wife set up a small phone services business registered with the Department of Trade on April 30, 1999.
The Ombudsman-Visayas however did not give weight to the SPA because it contained questionable entries specifically the statement already referring to the registration of the business on April 30, 1999 way back in 1993. Then the Joint affidavit was also denied by his nephew and one of the brothers. So it found Tony’s act of not declaring the bank deposits in his SALN, which were disproportionate to his and his wife’s salaries as falsification and dishonesty and administratively imposed upon him the penalty dismissal from service with forfeiture of all benefits and perpetual disqualification to hold public office.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) however, the Ombudsman’s order was reversed and set aside. The CA opined that in charges of dishonesty, intention is an important element in its commission. The CA ruled that Tony never denied the existence of the bank accounts and explained that those were not wholly owned by him submitting documents to buttress his explanation. Judging from his conduct, there is want of intent to conceal information, and without such intent the public officer is not dishonest although he is negligent. So Tony was merely ordered suspended for six months for simple neglect of duty. Was the CA correct?
No. Tony’s non-disclosure of the bank deposits in his SALN constitutes dishonesty. The law requires every public official to make a complete and full disclosure of his assets, liabilities and net worth in order to suppress any questionable accumulation of wealth which is usually shown by such non-disclosure. What the law seeks to curtail is acquisition of unexplained wealth. When the source of the undisclosed wealth can be properly accounted, then it is explained wealth which the law does not penalize.
It is true that mere misdeclaration of the SALN does not automatically amount to dishonesty. But when the accumulated wealth becomes manifestly disproportionate to the employee’s income or other sources of income and he fails to properly account or explain his other sources of income, he becomes susceptible to dishonesty.
Dishonesty begins when an individual intentionally makes a false statement in any material fact or practices or attempts to practice any deception or fraud. It implies the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud; untrustworthiness, lack of probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness. It is a malevolent act that puts serious doubt upon one’s ability to perform his duties with integrity and uprightness as a public officer or employee.
Indeed an honest public servant will have no difficulty in gathering, collating and presenting evidence that will prove his credibility, but a dishonest one will provide shallow excuses in his explanations.
In this case, Tony not only failed to disclose his bank accounts containing substantial deposits but he also failed to satisfactorily explain the accumulation of his wealth or even identify the sources of the accumulated wealth. The documents he submitted do not prove that his brothers and nephew did contribute or remit money for their supposed joint business venture. Equally, the SPA contained glaring inconsistencies that belie its authenticity. These documents which could explain the sources of Tony’s wealth are dubious and merit no consideration. Tony should thus really be dismissed from the service as ordered by the Ombudsman (Office of the Ombudsman vs. Racho, G.R. 185685, January 31, 2011, 641 SCRA 148)
* * *
E-mail: jcson@pldtdsl.com