CEBU - The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Visayas Ombudsman to file charges for falsification of public documents against a former Bureau of Internal Revenue officials who allegedly accumulated P5 million which was disproportionate to his income and which was not mentioned in his statements of assets and liabilities (SAL).
The High Court’s second division ruled that the anti-graft investigators of the Visayas Ombudsman were correct when they decided to file criminal charges against Nieto Racho and rejected his motion for reconsideration because there is overwhelming evidence to support the filing of charges against him.
Nieto Racho, who used to head the Special Investigation Division of the Cebu-based BIR District 80, was also named defendant in another case for the forfeiture of his “unlawfully acquired wealth” that is still filed and pending before the Regional Trial Court in Cebu.
Assistant Ombudsman Virginia Palanca-Santiago said the investigation conducted by the anti-graft investigators revealed enough evidence to prove that Racho’s P5 million bank deposits came from questionable sources.
In his 1999 statements of assets and liabilities, Racho, who was then the revenue district officer of Talisay City with an annual income of P220,093 claimed that he only had P15,000 cash in the bank, but the Ombudsman was able to uncover that Racho had P5.7 million in deposits in at least three private banks in Cebu.
Racho claimed that the P5.7 million does not really belong to him but one of his brothers who contributed the amount and agreed to deposit the money under his name for a business venture, an alibi rejected by the Ombudsman.
The former BIR official questioned the filing of criminal charges against him claiming he was not allowed to answer the charges before the Ombudsman, but the Supreme Court rejected the argument saying the Rules of Court provides that “Rather than being mandatory, a clarificatory hearing is optional on the part of the investigation officer as evidences by the use of the term may in section 3 (e) of Rule 112.”
After the Ombudsman decided to file the criminal charges against Racho, the latter quickly filed a motion for reconsideration. Racho claimed that the Ombudsman was quick to resolve his request and believed that there was no reinvestigation conducted, but the Supreme Court also found out that the claim has no basis.
“Equally clear to us, there was no manifest abuse of discretion on the part of Director (now Assistant Ombudsman) Santiago for her refusal to inhibit herself in the investigation. To ask prosecutors to recuse themselves on reinvestigation upon every unfavorable ruling in a case would cause unwarranted delays in the prosecution of actions,” the SC ruling read.
Justice Leonardo Quisumbing ordered the presiding judge of Regional Trial Court Branch 8 in Cebu City to proceed with the trial of the Criminal Case CBU-66458 filed against Racho.
Racho’s case for the forfeiture of his bank accounts is still pending before the sala of RTC Branch 9 judge Geraldine Faith Econg.
Republic Act 1379 provides that if the amount of money and properties of public officials and employees is manifestly out of proportion to their salaries and to their other lawful income, it is presumed that the property is unlawfully acquired.
If the concerned public official and employee cannot show to the satisfaction of the court that he has lawfully acquired the property in question, then the court shall declare the property forfeited in favor of the state. – Rene U. Borromeo/BRP (THE FREEMAN)