Case Summary (G.R. No. 126858)
Petitioners
Jose U. Ong, then Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, and his spouse Nelly M. Ong, formally impleaded in forfeiture proceedings but not separately investigated by the Ombudsman.
Respondents
The Sandiganbayan, which denied motions to dismiss and for reconsideration, and the Ombudsman, which conducted the preliminary inquiry and initiated petition for forfeiture under Republic Act No. 1379.
Key Dates
• Complaint-Affidavit filed February 4, 1992.
• Ombudsman preliminary inquiry orders: November 18, 1992 and February 11, 1993.
• Sandiganbayan resolutions challenged: August 18, 1994 (denying motion to dismiss) and October 22, 1996 (denying motion for reconsideration).
• Petition for Certiorari filed December 13, 1996.
• Supreme Court decision promulgated September 16, 2005.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (article on due process and presumption of innocence).
• Republic Act No. 1379 (Forfeiture of ill-gotten wealth of public officers).
• Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
• Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989).
• Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman.
Factual Background
Congressman Gillego’s affidavit alleged that Commissioner Ong’s acquisition (five Alabang lots and a Makati lot worth over ₱21 million) was grossly disproportionate to his lawful income (≈₱200,000 per annum). Ong submitted statements of assets, tax returns, bank certificates, an “Acknowledgment of Trust” for brother-in-law transactions, and an analysis of fund sources.
Initiation of Forfeiture Proceedings
The Ombudsman’s Fact-Finding Report recommended forfeiture under RA 1379. A pre-charge inquiry was ordered, with Ong directed to submit evidence of bank loans, retirement benefits, money-market placements, and tax returns for 1987–1991. Instead, Ong sought inhibition of investigators and challenged the order as violating due process.
Preliminary Investigation and Deficiencies
The Ombudsman subpoenaed Allied Bank, SGV & Co., and the BIR for documents. The banks and SGV failed to supply meaningful evidence. Ong was afforded additional time to produce requested documents but did not comply. He later objected that he was not notified of subpoenas or given opportunity to attend clarificatory hearings mandated by Ombudsman procedural rules.
Sandiganbayan Resolutions
• August 18, 1994: Held that forfeiture proceedings under RA 1379 are civil in rem, requiring no preliminary investigation for a spouse formally impleaded (Nelly Ong). The petition adequately stated a cause of action.
• October 22, 1996: Denied reconsideration, but directed the Ombudsman to furnish petitioners with the underlying resolution and allowed five days to file a motion for reconsideration.
Issues Presented
- Whether Nelly Ong was entitled to a separate preliminary investigation.
- Whether the Ombudsman’s dual role as investigator and prosecutor violated due process or impartiality.
- Whether RA 1379 is unconstitutional for vagueness, shifting burden of proof, or infringing Supreme Court rule-making power.
Nature of Forfeiture Proceedings
The Court reaffirmed that RA 1379 proceedings are civil in form but penal in nature. They do not require criminal formalities (arraignment, trial) but afford “a previous inquiry similar to preliminary investigation.”
Right to Preliminary Investigation for Co-respondent
Although RA 1379 explicitly grants prior inquiry only to public officers, the Court held that where conjugal property is affected, a non-officer spouse is entitled to the same procedural safeguards under due process. Nonetheless, because Nelly Ong did not assert any distinct claim to the properties or present separate evidence, any preliminary inquiry in her favor would have been “an empty ceremony.”
Due Process Violations
The Ombudsman failed to notify petitioners of subpoenas issued to third parties and did not serve the resolution directing the forfeiture petition, thus denying petitioners the right to attend clarificatory hearings and to file a timely reconsideration motion under RA 6770. The Sandiganbayan’s second resolution sought to cure these lapses, but petitioners prematurely filed a certiorari petition, waiving their opportunity to invoke the remedy.
Dual Role of the Ombudsman
The Court upheld the Ombudsman’s constitutional mandate to investigate and prosecute cases involving public officers, finding no inherent bias in its dual investigatory and
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 126858)
Facts of the Case
- In February 1992, Congressman Gillego filed a Complaint-Affidavit alleging that BIR Commissioner Jose U. Ong had acquired real properties far exceeding his lawful income.
- Ong’s 1989 Statement of Assets and Liabilities showed P750,000 cash, but by late 1990 and early 1991 he had acquired multiple Alabang lots (valued between P4.675M and P5.7M each) and a Makati lot (P832,000).
- Ong submitted a net worth analysis (1989–1991) and explanations of fund sources: retirement benefits from SGV, a P6.5M Allied Bank loan, money-market placements.
- The Ombudsman ordered a pre-charge investigation; the fact-finding report recommended forfeiture proceedings against five specified properties allegedly acquired illegitimately.
Procedural History Before the Ombudsman
- November 1992: Ong directed to submit counter-affidavit and supporting documents; he filed one in December 1992.
- February 1993: Ombudsman subpoenaed Allied Bank, SGV & Co., and BIR for documentary evidence. Ong was ordered to produce loan and retirement documents, tax returns, and investment records.
- Ong moved to recall the subpoena order, claiming due-process violations; his motion was denied in a May 1993 Resolution finding his explanations unsubstantiated and concluding the properties were grossly disproportionate to his salary.
- The Ombudsman, with the Solicitor General, filed a petition for forfeiture under RA 1379, RAs 3019 and 6770, before the Sandiganbayan in November 1993.
Proceedings Before the Sandiganbayan
- The Sandiganbayan issued a writ of preliminary attachment on November 18, 1993 against petitioners’ properties.
- January 1994: Jose and Nelly Ong filed their Answer, alleging due-process defects, unconstitutionality of RA 1379, and lack of cause of action. They denied Nelly Ong had no income.
- August 18, 1994 Resolution: Denied petitioners’ motion to dismiss, held forfeiture an in rem civil action, and ruled Nelly Ong’s participation in preliminary inquiry unnecessary.
- O