14 Bugarin v. Republic

HEIRS OF BUGARIN v. REPUBLIC ISSUES & RATIO.
G.R. No. 174431/ AUGUST 6, 2012/MENDOZA, J. /ALVAREZ Whether the assailed resolution of the Sandiganbayan was in accordance with the
PETITIONERS Heirs of Jolly R. Bugarin decision of the Supreme Court in the Republic case. YES
RESPONDENTS Republic of the Philippines
Petitioners should have realized in the fallo, as well as in the body of the Republic
DOCTRINE. When the government, through the PCGG, filed forfeiture
decision, that the properties listed by this Court were all candidates for forfeiture. At
proceedings against Bugarin, it took on the burden of proving the following:
that point, no additional proof or evidence was required. All that was needed was for
1. The public official or employee acquired personal or real properties during
the Sandiganbayan, as the court of origin, to make sure that the aggregate sum of the
his/her incumbency;
acquisition costs of the properties chosen remained within the amount which was
2. This acquisition is manifestly disproportionate to his/her salary or other
disproportionate to the income of Bugarin during his tenure as NBI Director. To
legitimate income; and
reiterate, the case was only remanded to the Sandiganbayan to implement the Court’s
3. The existence of which gives rise to a presumption that these same properties
ruling in the Republic case. To grant the petition and order the Sandiganbayan to
were acquired prima facie unlawfully.
receive evidence once again would be tantamount to resurrecting the long-settled
After the government had established these, the burden to debunk the presumption
disposition in the Republic case. This cannot be permitted.
was shifted to Bugarin. He had to explain and adequately show that his
acquisitions, even though they might appear disproportionate, were nonetheless
It is equally clear in the earlier fallo of the Republic that this Court had already made
lawfully acquired.
a determination, nay, a declaration that the properties of the late Bugarin acquired
from 1968 to 1980 which were disproportionate to his lawful income were ordered
FACTS. forfeited in favor of the State. Following Section 6 of R.A. No. 1379, this means that
 The late Bugarin was the Director of NBI when late Ferdinand Marcos was still the the late Bugarin, now being represented by the petitioners, failed to convince the
President from 1965-1986. Court that the delimited list of properties were lawfully acquired. With this failure,
 After the downfall of Marcos, the new administration through the PCGG filed a the said properties have been ordered forfeited to the extent or up to that which is
petition for forfeiture of properties under RA 1379 against Bugarin with the disproportionate to his lawful or disposable income which was likewise determined
Sandiganbayan. The latter dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. by the Court in that case.
 PCGG sought a review of the dismissal. The Court found Bugarin to have
amassed wealth totaling P2.1M from 1968 to 1980 against his total income for The properties, consisting of real and other investments, acquired within the subject
the period 1967 to 1980 totaling only P766,548.00. With this, the Court held period were identified and listed down in the case of Republic. Both the acquisition
that Bugarin’s properties, which were visibly out of proportion to his lawful dates which were likewise indicated there were reckoned. Still in Republic, the
income from 1968 to 1980, should be forfeited in favor of the government. lawful income of Bugarin during the same period was also determined by the Court
 The case was remanded to the Sndiganbayan for proper determination of based on his very own “Exhibit ‘38’ ” minus that tempered amount representing his
properties to be forfeited in favor of the Republic. as well as his family’s personal expenses. Therefore, when the case was returned to
 Bugarin moved for reconsideration and while his motion was pending, he passed the Sandiganbayan, it was not, as petitioners ardently claim—to conduct another full
away so his heirs moved to have the case dismissed. Likewise, the petitioners blown trial or proceeding to determine or establish the very same things that this
moved for the reconsideration of the order of the SC arguing that the Court had long decided in Republic. Rather, it was to choose from among the Court’s
Sandiganbayan could not determine the properties to be forfeited on its own, and identified and declared reduced list of properties that would approximate the amount
further prayed that the parties be allowed to present evidence to determine what which was beyond or out of proportion to Bugarin’s lawful income also identified
properties of Bugarin would be subject to forfeiture. and declared by the High Tribunal in the same case.
 Finally, the Sandiganbayan issued its assailed Resolution ordering the
forfeiture of certain properties of Bugarin. DECISION.
 Residential house and lot in Dasma Village, Makati WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, The Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan
 Nine residential lots in Tagaytay City dated April 3, 2006 and August 30, 2006, implementing the January 30, 2002
 Residential lots in Greenhills, QC, Pasig City, Mindoro Decision of the Court in Republic v. Sandiganbayan, are hereby AFFIRMED.
 Condo unit in Baguio City
 Orchard and Cocoland in Mindoro
 Other investments in Makati Sports Club, Manila Polo Club, Phil. Columbian
Club and Baguio Country Club = TOTAL: PHP 1, 395,543.00

14 Bugarin v. Republic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

14 Bugarin v. Republic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

14 Bugarin v. Republic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HEIRS OF BUGARIN v. REPUBLIC ISSUES & RATIO.

You might also like