Manila Bulletin
Philippines
Sandiganbayan orders forfeiture of former DPWH official's residential property
Philippines
Sandiganbayan orders forfeiture of former DPWH official's residential property
Sandiganbayan orders forfeiture of former DPWH official's residential property
Published Jan 27, 2020 12:00 am
By Czarina Nicole Ong-Ki
The Sandiganbayan Third Division has ordered the forfeiture of the residential house and lot owned by former Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Regional Director Romeo Gatdula Panganiban and his family in Los Baños, Laguna, but dismissed the government's claim on his other properties.
Sandiganbayan (MANILA BULLETIN)
The Office of the Ombudsman first filed a Petition for Forfeiture of Unlawfully Acquired Properties on Sept. 27, 2004 against Panganiban, his wife Fe Labunos Panganiban, and sisters Elsa De Luna and Purita Sarmiento.
The Ombudsman sought the forfeiture of real properties acquired by Panganiban from 1994 to 2001, which have been valued at P40,766,300, as well as ill-gotten wealth amounting to P10,236,771.60.
The first property involved a residential house and lot covered by TCT No. 307495 in the name of Panganiban and his wife located at Grand Sacay Villas, Batong Malake, Los Baños, Laguna with an acquisition cost of P1,280,000.
The next was a three-bedroom house and lot located at No. 2840 Heritage Drive, Pasadena, Los Angeles, California, registered in the name of Fe and their daughter Geraldine Panganiban with an acquisition cost of P12,540,300.
Lastly, there was a residential lot consisting of 200 square meters located at Barangay Callos, Sta. Cruz, Laguna covered by Tax Declaration No. 1999-25-007-01027 declared in the name of Panganiban and his wife with an acquisition cost of P146,000.
The prosecution said these properties are obviously out of proportion to the accumulated income of Panganiban and therefore cannot be sustained.
In its ruling, the anti-graft court first delved into the Sta. Cruz, Laguna property and said the evidence presented by the prosecution did not establish its ill-gotten nature.
In his defense, Panganiban showed he won first prize in a Sweepstakes draw of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) in the amount of P250,000 on May 23, 1982. He then acquired in November that year a 200-square property, then mortgaged it to Rural Bank of Pagsanjan in the amount of P450,000 in 1993.
The court ruled the property was lawfully purchased, and cannot be classified as ill-gotten by Panganiban.
As for the Los Angeles property, the Supreme Court had already ruled earlier to dismiss the petition for one half of its property in a decision dated April 23, 2018. The Sandiganbayan was then left to rule on the other half.
But based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, the court ruled that it is not enough to prove how the remaining half of the property was ill-gotten.
"After a careful examination of the testimonial and documentary evidence presented by the Republic, there is nothing therein that would show how Fe and Geraldine Panganiban acquired the Los Angeles property through illegal use of government funds," the decision read.
The prosecution likewise hit the Panganiban couple on their foreign travels, which were allegedly excessive compared to the former DPWH official's income. Unfortunately for the prosecution, the court said it failed to discharge its burden of proving that the expenses incurred by the couple constitute as unexplained wealth.
"The plaintiff merely provided basic information such as the destination places and the departure and arrival dates of the trips," the decision stated. "Yet, the plaintiff failed to show proof as to the aggregate amount spent in purchasing the airline tickets in their foreign trips."
On the other hand, the prosecution finally scored a victory with regards to the Los Baños, Laguna property of the Panganibans.
Panganiban said in his defense that he used the loan proceeds from the Sta. Cruz property in the amount of P1.5 million in purchase the Los Baños property. However, the court said the defense lacks merit.
It was also glaring for the court that Panganiban did not include the property in his statement of assets liabilities and net worth (SALN) for the year 1994, even though it was purchased on June 28, 1994.
"Hence, the plaintiff Republic has preponderantly presented proofs that indicated that the Los Baños property was indeed an ill-gotten wealth of Romeo Panganiban," the decision stated.
The 37-page decision was written by Associate Justice Lorifel Pahimna with the concurrence of Second Division Chairperson Oscar Herrera Jr. and Associate Justice Michael Frederick Musngi.
Sandiganbayan (MANILA BULLETIN)
The Office of the Ombudsman first filed a Petition for Forfeiture of Unlawfully Acquired Properties on Sept. 27, 2004 against Panganiban, his wife Fe Labunos Panganiban, and sisters Elsa De Luna and Purita Sarmiento.
The Ombudsman sought the forfeiture of real properties acquired by Panganiban from 1994 to 2001, which have been valued at P40,766,300, as well as ill-gotten wealth amounting to P10,236,771.60.
The first property involved a residential house and lot covered by TCT No. 307495 in the name of Panganiban and his wife located at Grand Sacay Villas, Batong Malake, Los Baños, Laguna with an acquisition cost of P1,280,000.
The next was a three-bedroom house and lot located at No. 2840 Heritage Drive, Pasadena, Los Angeles, California, registered in the name of Fe and their daughter Geraldine Panganiban with an acquisition cost of P12,540,300.
Lastly, there was a residential lot consisting of 200 square meters located at Barangay Callos, Sta. Cruz, Laguna covered by Tax Declaration No. 1999-25-007-01027 declared in the name of Panganiban and his wife with an acquisition cost of P146,000.
The prosecution said these properties are obviously out of proportion to the accumulated income of Panganiban and therefore cannot be sustained.
In its ruling, the anti-graft court first delved into the Sta. Cruz, Laguna property and said the evidence presented by the prosecution did not establish its ill-gotten nature.
In his defense, Panganiban showed he won first prize in a Sweepstakes draw of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) in the amount of P250,000 on May 23, 1982. He then acquired in November that year a 200-square property, then mortgaged it to Rural Bank of Pagsanjan in the amount of P450,000 in 1993.
The court ruled the property was lawfully purchased, and cannot be classified as ill-gotten by Panganiban.
As for the Los Angeles property, the Supreme Court had already ruled earlier to dismiss the petition for one half of its property in a decision dated April 23, 2018. The Sandiganbayan was then left to rule on the other half.
But based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, the court ruled that it is not enough to prove how the remaining half of the property was ill-gotten.
"After a careful examination of the testimonial and documentary evidence presented by the Republic, there is nothing therein that would show how Fe and Geraldine Panganiban acquired the Los Angeles property through illegal use of government funds," the decision read.
The prosecution likewise hit the Panganiban couple on their foreign travels, which were allegedly excessive compared to the former DPWH official's income. Unfortunately for the prosecution, the court said it failed to discharge its burden of proving that the expenses incurred by the couple constitute as unexplained wealth.
"The plaintiff merely provided basic information such as the destination places and the departure and arrival dates of the trips," the decision stated. "Yet, the plaintiff failed to show proof as to the aggregate amount spent in purchasing the airline tickets in their foreign trips."
On the other hand, the prosecution finally scored a victory with regards to the Los Baños, Laguna property of the Panganibans.
Panganiban said in his defense that he used the loan proceeds from the Sta. Cruz property in the amount of P1.5 million in purchase the Los Baños property. However, the court said the defense lacks merit.
It was also glaring for the court that Panganiban did not include the property in his statement of assets liabilities and net worth (SALN) for the year 1994, even though it was purchased on June 28, 1994.
"Hence, the plaintiff Republic has preponderantly presented proofs that indicated that the Los Baños property was indeed an ill-gotten wealth of Romeo Panganiban," the decision stated.
The 37-page decision was written by Associate Justice Lorifel Pahimna with the concurrence of Second Division Chairperson Oscar Herrera Jr. and Associate Justice Michael Frederick Musngi.