University of the Philippines College of Law

3D

Topic Presumptions
Case No. 126858 / 16 September 2005
Case Name Ong v. Sandiganbayan
Ponente Tinga, J.

RELEVANT FACTS
 Cong. Gillego executed a Complaint-Affidavit alleging that the then BIR Commissioner Jose Ong has
amassed properties worth disproportionately more than his lawful income.
o The complaint stated that Ong’s SALN declared P750k as his cash on hand and in banks. He was
however able to acquire real property in areas like Alabang, Muntinlupa, and Metro Manila,
worth millions of pesos.
 The Director of Fact-Finding of the Ombudsman submitted a report recommending that forfeiture
proceedings be instituted against Ong’s properties, acquired in just 2 years as Commissioner.
 Ong submitted his SALN for the succeeding years showing that he had obtained a loan from Allied
Banking Corporation, a certificate from SGV & Co that he had received retirement benefits from the
same, and other documents explaining the sources of his funds.
o The OMB issued another Order directing Ong to submit in writing all documents in his
possession relevant to the approval by Allied Bank of the loan, as well as those relevant to SGV’s
granting of retirement benefits.
 Ong instead filed a Motion for recall of the documents, the inhibition of the investigators, and
reassignment of the case.
 A Resolution was issued finding that Ong had failed to substantiate his claim that sources financing his
acquisitions came from his other lawful income, and directed the filing by the OMB with the OSG of a
petition for recovery of ill-gotten wealth under RA 1379 against Ong and all other persons concerned.
o A Petition for forfeiture of unlawfully acquired property was accordingly filed before the
Sandiganbayan against Ong and his wife, PET Nelly Ong.
 The Petition alleged that the total value of the questioned assets is P21,474,585 – an amount grossly
disproportional to Ong’s lawful income from his public employment and other sources amounting to
P1,060,412.50 considering that Nelly had no visible means of income.
o This gave rise to the presumption under Sec. 2, RA 1379 that the properties were unlawfully
acquired.
 The Sandiganbayan directed the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against the properties of
PETs. A hearing of their defenses was conducted via motion to dismiss, but the Sandiganbayan issued
the assailed Ruling, holding the same untenable.
o MR filed – arguing that PETs were not notified of the Resolution directing the filing of the
Petition for Forfeiture.
 Another assailed Resolution was filed by the Sandiganbayan – OMB was to furnish PETs with a copy of
the Resolution to file the forfeiture case and giving them 5 days from receipt to file an MR.
o PETs filed a petition for certiorari.
EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN TRIAL
PROSECUTION DEFENSE
Fact-Finding Report for properties amounting to Bank Certificate showing that a loan was acquired
millions in value acquired in just 2 years from Allied Banking Corp

Issue
W/N RA 1379 is
unconstitutional for violating
the constitutional provision
for presumption of innocence
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED.
University of the Philippines College of Law
3D
Certificate from SGV & Co. certifying that Ong had
received retirement benefits from the same
Acknowledgment of Trust stating that Ong acquired
one of the properties for his brother-in-law
ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI
Ratio
NO.
1. The Presumption of Innocence Clause is not violated by Sec. 2 of RA
1379, which states that property acquired by a public officer or
employee during his incumbency in an amount which is manifestly
out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and
to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired
property shall be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully
acquired.
2. it is merely required by the State to establish a prima facie case, after
which the burden of proof shifts to the accused.
3. In the case of People v. Alicante, the Court stated that as it has
previously been decided, in case of statutory crimes, that no
constitutional provision is violated by a statute providing that proof
by the State of some material fact/s shall constitute prima facie
evidence of guilt, and that then the burden is shifted to the
defendant for the purpose of showing that such act/s are innocent
and are committed without unlawful intention. The State having the
right to declare what acts are criminal, within certain well defined
limitations, has a right to specify what act/s shall constitute a crime,
as well as what proof shall constitute prima facie evidence of guilt,
and then to put upon the defendant the burden of showing that such
act/s are innocent and are not committed with any criminal intent or
intention.
RULING
SEPARATE OPINIONS
NOTES