Case Summary (G.R. No. 169982)
Applicable Law
The constitution applicable to this case is the 1987 Philippine Constitution, as the decision was made in 2007. Key laws referenced include the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, which require public officials to file truthful declarations of assets and liabilities.
Development of the Complaint
The complaint against Pleyto was initiated by then-Director Eduardo S. Matillano of the PNP-CIDG, who detailed findings from an investigative panel that scrutinized Pleyto's and his family's amassed wealth and the discrepancy with their declared assets in respective Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs) for the years 2001 and 2002. The findings included numerous real properties unaccounted for in his declarations.
Office of the Ombudsman Findings
After investigation, the Office of the Ombudsman found Pleyto guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty, leading to his dismissal from service on June 28, 2004, followed by a denial of a motion for reconsideration on October 12, 2004. This investigation concluded that both the income reported by Pleyto and his declared properties did not align, implying that there was willful hiding of wealth.
Court of Appeals Proceedings
Pleyto's appeals led him to the Court of Appeals, where he contested the Ombudsman’s orders. The appellate court ultimately upheld the Ombudsman's decisions, affirming the dismissal based on substantial evidence of Pleyto's failure to file an accurate SALN and the significant difference between his declared wealth and actual properties owned.
Supreme Court Intervention
Upon further appeal to the Supreme Court under Rule 45, Pleyto contested various alleged errors made by the appellate court, including the acceptance of the Ombudsman’s intervention in the process. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pleyto, primarily on the grounds of the improper intervention by the Office of the Ombudsman in the appellate process.
Findings on Evidence and Burden of Proof
The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of substantial evidence and burden of proof, noting that the presumption of unlawful acquisition under Republic Act No. 1379 could be rebutted. It pointed out that the investigation and findings heavily relied on inadequate assessments of Pleyto's financial capacity to acquire real properties, as they failed to consider a broad spectrum of his income sources, including those derived from his wife's business activities.
Santos' Arguments on SALN
Pleyto argued that his SALNs were not calculated with the intent to deceive and that errors in his declarations stemmed from failure to fully grasp the information being presented, exacerbated by the use of a family bookkeeper. He maintained that while he had neglected certain reporting requirements, this did not rise to the level o
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 169982)
Case Overview
- Petitioner: Salvador A. Pleyto
- Respondent: Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG)
- Case Number: G.R. No. 169982
- Date of Decision: November 23, 2007
- Division: Third Division
- Legal Context: Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, assailing the dismissal from service of Salvador A. Pleyto due to allegations of grave misconduct and dishonesty.
Background of the Case
- The case originates from a complaint filed by the PNP-CIDG against Pleyto and his family, alleging violations of various laws concerning the unlawful acquisition of property and misrepresentation in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN).
- The complaint cited Pleyto's reported extravagant lifestyle and unexplained wealth, leading to an investigation by the PNP-CIDG.
Investigation Findings
- A Joint Affidavit by investigators from the PNP-CIDG indicated that:
- Pleyto and his family owned multiple properties in Bulacan and Quezon City.
- He failed to accurately report his assets in his SALNs for 2001 and 2002.
- His family took numerous foreign trips that seemed disproportionate to his reported income.
- The Ombudsman found sufficient evidence to warrant Pleyto's preventive suspension and ultimately, his dismissal from service.
Ombudsman Decision
- On June 28, 2004, the Ombudsman dismissed Pleyto from service, citing grave misconduct and dishonesty, with the following penalties:
- Dism