THE Sandiganbayan has dismissed the P130.59 million ill-gotten wealth case filed in 2014 by the Office of the Ombudsman against the assets of the late Chief Justice Renato Corona.
All three justices of the Second Division unanimously held that government lawyers failed to prove that the bank deposits and real estate properties identified in the 2014 petition represented unlawfully acquired assets.
Associate Justice Arthur O. Malabaguio penned the 48-page decision, concurred in by Associate Justices Oscar C. Herrera Jr. and Michael Frederick L. Musngi.
While acknowledging that there were in fact “undisclosed cash assets” shown by the Ombudsman’s evidence that were left out in the former chief magistrate’s statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALNs), the anti-graft court said Corona’s heirs were able to explain the omission as well as the source of the funds.
“Where the source of the undisclosed wealth was properly accounted for, the Supreme Court deemed the same an ‘explained wealth’ which the law does not penalize,” the Sandiganbayan said.
According to the forfeiture case dated March 24, 2014, Corona and his wife former, John Hay Development Corp. president and board chairperson Cristina R. Corona, had cash deposits totaling P137.94 million in different banks.
Likewise, Ombudsman investigators said Corona undervalued two condominium units and a prime residential property in La Vista, Quezon City by a combined P17.55 million.
Two years after the filing of the forfeiture case, Corona died on April 29, 2016. He was substituted in the case by his three children.
According to trial records, Corona’s 2010 SALN listed a unit at One Burgundy Plaza in Loyola Heights, Quezon City at only P921,080 while the Ombudsman said the real price tag was P2.76 million.
Another condo unit with three parking lots in The Bellagio, Fort Bonifacio in Taguid City was declared in his SALN at only P6.6 million but investigators said the actual purchase price was P14.51 million.
A property on Maranaw St. , La Vista, Quezon City listed at P3 million was found to have been purchased at P11 million.
Likewise, using bank certifications, account statements, printouts of account details, and history of daily transactions, the Ombudsman said it found that the Coronas have P65.94 million in peso-denominated deposits at PS Bank, Allied Bank, Land Bank of the Philippines, and Bank of the Philippines Islands (BPI).
On the other hand, it also found the equivalent of P71.99 million in dollar-denominated accounts of the Coronas with PS Bank, Allied Bank, Philam Bond, BPI, and Citibank.
Combined, Ombudsman investigators said the former Chief Justice had P137.94 million in cash assets but only declared P3.5 million in his 2010 SALN or a difference of P134.44 million.
A separate tabulation of the Corona couple’s combined income from 2001 to 2011 showed a total of P30.37 million.
The family’s own witness, certified public accountant Florita Santos, testified that her own analysis of the movement of funds in the different accounts of respondents showed the Coronas’ total revolving cash placements amounted to P88.49 million from 2002 to 2010 and not P137.94 million as alleged in the petition.
While the Coronas did not deny the P30.37 million sum of their combined income, they claimed that the government failed to consider that they have other sources of funds, including the proceeds of a property sold in 2001, their conjugal and their children’s funds, and the roll-over earnings of all these co-mingled funds invested in various money placement and high-yield accounts.
The Sandiganbayan upheld the respondents’ explanation that they had other sources of funds other than their combined income from their respective jobs.
Taken together with the fact that both “did not enter the government service as paupers,” the anti-graft court said it found no basis to the allegation that the former Chief Justice concealed unexplained wealth by omitting them from his SALN.
“Since respondents were able to sufficiently explain the legality of their undisclosed cash assets, they cannot be held liable for forfeiture of their properties. At most, respondent CJ Corona may be held guilty of simple negligence for having failed to ascertain that his SALNs were accomplished properly, accurately, and in more detail,” the Sandiganbayan said.
The court added that despite failing to declare the other sources of funds in his SALNs, it was not shown that the assets of Corona were manifestly out of proportion to their lawful income or salary and may be presumed to be unlawfully acquired.
