The Supreme Court (SC) recently affirmed a ruling that allows for the forfeiture of wealth acquired by a public official that significantly exceeds their lawful income, deeming it presumed ill-gotten. Crucially, the Court held that this forfeiture power extends even to assets that are registered under the names of other individuals but can be traced back to the official.

General Ligot's Case

The ruling specifically upheld the forfeiture of properties, bank deposits, and investment accounts linked to retired Lieutenant General Jacinto C. Ligot (General Ligot), a former commissioned comptroller in the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).

• The Investigation: A lifestyle investigation by the Ombudsman found that General Ligot's declared assets in his Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs) from 1982 to 2003 did not reflect the true extent of properties and financial accounts under his name, his wife's, his children's, and other relatives' names.
• Sandiganbayan Findings: The anti-graft court, the Sandiganbayan, found undeclared properties worth PHP 102 million and deposits and investment funds totaling PHP 53 million that were disproportionate to his declared lawful income. These assets were ordered forfeited.
• Concealed Ownership: The SC noted that General Ligot's wife and children lacked independent income sources yet held significant assets. Furthermore, certain condominium units were registered under his sister and brother-in-law, but evidence showed General Ligot and his wife made the purchase and most amortization payments, proving his true ownership.

SC's Legal Rationale

The SC rejected the appeals filed by General Ligot's family and relatives, solidifying the application of Republic Act No. 1379 (RA 1379).

• Presumption of Illegal Acquisition: Under RA 1379, a public officer's property is presumed to be illegally acquired if it is clearly out of proportion to their legitimate income.
• Traced Ownership: The Court emphasized that this presumption applies not only to assets directly under the officer's name but also to those concealed or transferred to third parties, provided the true ownership can be traced back to the officer. The SC explained that excluding such assets would render the law "ineffectual."
• Bank Secrecy Exemption: The SC also clarified that bank secrecy laws do not apply to proceedings concerning unexplained wealth when bank deposits are the subject of the forfeiture, as was the case here.

Read more:

Full text of People of the Philippines v. Heirs of Lieutenant General Jacinto C. Ligot, G.R. No. 257827/257940/258109/259593, March 5, 2025