(Digest) Ong v. Sandiganbayan

ONG v. SANDIGANBAYAN G.R. No. 126858 Sep. 16, 2005 J. Tinga petitioners Jose Ong and Nelly Ong respondents Sandiganbayan (3rd Division) and Office of the Ombudsman summary BIR Commissioner Ong challenged the constitutionality of Sec. 2 of RA 1379, which creates a presumption of guilt in cases where the value of the property is disproportionate to the public officer’s lawful income. He alleged that it violates the presumption of innocence. SC said that in statutory crimes, no constitutional provision is violated by a statute providing that proof by the State of some material fact or facts shall constitute prima facie evidence of guilt, and that then the burden is shifted to the defendant for the purpose of showing that such act or acts are innocent and are committed without unlawful intention.

facts of the case 

BIR Commissioner Jose Ong was charged with violation of RA 1379 for allegedly amassing properties worth disproportionately more than his lawful income. He was questioned on his acquisition of properties totaling to P21.47M when his lawful income from public employment and other sources only amounted to P1.06M. His annual salary was only P200K.



In his counter-affidavit, he explained that his properties were lawfully acquired; these were from his P7.8M retirement pay from SGV & Co., money market placements, proceeds of his loan from Allied Bank and one property was from his brother-in-law. Questionable properties

1.

House and lot in Ayala Alabang

2.

Lot in Ayala Alabang

Amt

P

Explanation

5,500,000.00

Interest from money market placements (MMP) Partial liquidation of MMP

5,500,000.00

P6.5 M Term loan from Allied Bank Balance of MMP Interest from MMP

3. 4.

5.

Lot in Ayala Alabang Lot in Ayala Alabang

Condo unit at Asian Mansion, Makati

5,055,000.00

bought for Ong's bro-in-law

744,585.00 P



4,675,000.00

Unused portion of the P6.5M Term Loan

21,474,585.00

Unused portion of the P6.5M Term Loan

Explained Amt

2,404,643.00 3,095,357.00

5,500,000.00

5,500,000.00 4,365,834.00 83,981.00

700,415.00

5,150,230.00 5,055,000.00

744,585.00 21,949,815.00

The Office of the Ombudsman thereafter ordered him to submit in writing the pertinent documents to prove his claim, i.e. documents on loan availment, records of the retirement benefit, documents on money market placements and ITR.

1



Instead of complying with the Order, Ong filed a Motion alleging that questioning the Order for being violative of his rt to be presumed innocent. Motion was denied. In his petition before the SC, he raised the ff. relevant ARGUMENTS: a. RA 1379 is unconstitutional for disregarding the presumption of innocence b. It also violates the right against self-incrimination

 OSG: the presumption of innocence clause refers to criminal prosecutions and not to forfeiture proceedings which are civil actions in rem. The Constitution is likewise not violated by RA 1379 because statutes which declare that as a matter of law a particular inference follows from the proof of a particular fact, one fact becoming prima facie evidence of another, are not necessarily invalid, the effect of the presumption being merely to shift the burden of proof upon the adverse party.

issue WON RA 1379 is unconstitutional – NO ratio 1. It is well-within the rt of the legislature, in enacting statutory crimes, to declare w/c act are criminal, as well as what proof shall constitute prima facie evidence of guilt Sec. 2 of RA 1379 which states that property acquired by a public officer or employee during his incumbency in an amount which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property shall be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired.  As elaborated by Fr. Joaquin Bernas, under the principle of presumption of innocence, it is merely required of the State to establish a prima facie case, after which the burden of proof shifts to the accused.  In People v. Alicante, it was already declared that in case of statutory crimes, no constitutional provision is violated by a statute providing that proof by the State of some material fact or facts shall constitute prima facie evidence of guilt, and that then the burden is shifted to the defendant for the purpose of showing that such act or acts are innocent and are committed without unlawful intention.  The State having the right to declare what acts are criminal, within certain well defined limitations, has a right to specify what act or acts shall constitute a crime, as well as what proof shall constitute prima facie evidence of guilt, and then to put upon the defendant the burden of showing that such act or acts are innocent and are not committed with any criminal intent or intention. 2. The constitutional rt against self-incrimination is N/A here The right is a prohibition against the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from the accused. It is simply a prohibition against legal process to extract from the accused's own lips, against his will, admission of his guilt.  In this case, petitioners are not compelled to present themselves as witnesses in rebutting the presumption established by law. They may present documents evidencing the purported bank loans, money market placements and other fund sources in their defense.

2