Over alleged ill-gotten wealth: Ombuds drops raps vs Loots

CEBU, Philippines —  The Office of the Ombudsman has cleared couple Vicente and Maria Luisa Loot from charges of unexplained wealth.

The complaint against the couple, both former mayors of Daanbantayan, Cebu, on July 24, 2017 by Task Force 5 of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices.

Vicente, a retired police general, allegedly acquired unexplained wealth amounting P41.5 million from 2005 to 2015.

Maria Luisa allegedly acquired unexplained wealth amounting to P18.7 million from 1986 to 1990.

The couple has denied the allegations vehemently.

Vicente served in the Philippine Constabulary and Philippine National Police from 1982 to 2015 and was elected later as mayor of Daanbantayan on June 30, 2016.

Maria Luisa was elected councilor of Daanbantayan from April 16, 1986 to February 2, 1998 and, subsequently, as vice mayor for several terms until June 30, 2013.

Findings

In a 26-page Joint Resolution dated January 27, 2020 approved by Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon Cornelio Somido, the Special Panel of Investigators said:

“Notwithstanding, complainant failed to satisfy the requirements to establish prima facie presumption that respondents’ wealth is unlawfully acquired.”

The Special Panel of Investigators said Maria Luisa’s alleged unexplained wealth of P18.7 million is unfounded while Vicente’s alleged unexplained wealth of P41.5 is imprecise.

Before Maria Luisa was appointed as municipal councilor, she was already in possession of the house and lot in Poblacion worth P455,000; store and bodega in Poblacion worth P955,000; sugar land in Lanao worth P190,000; and agricultural lot in Maya and Pajo worth P250,000; all in Daanbantayan with total value of P1,850,000.

The anti-graft investigators said the complainant failed to determine Ma. Luisa’s net worth from the start due to inadequate information on her earnings and savings from her employment in Japan and businesses prior to entering government service in 1986.

The cash flow analysis on Ma. Luisa’s alleged unexplained wealth covered from 1986 to 1990 despite the fact that she was councilor only from April 16, 1986 to February 2, 1988 and returned to public service as vice mayor only on July 1, 1992.

The funds inflow used by complainant was reportedly limited to Ma. Luisa’s gross compensation income of P35,778 from 1986 to 1988 but the funds outflow included purchases of properties made after public service from February 3, 1988 to 1990.

Investigators said the inclusion of real and personal properties amounting to P9.8 million and P8.9 million, respectively, in the cash flow analysis were prejudicial to Ma. Luisa.

 “This Office resolves to dismiss the forfeiture complaint against Ma. Luisa for alleged unexplained wealth in the amount of P18,735,022.00 covering the period of 1986 to 1990 for lack of basis,” the resolution reads.

It was also found that there was insufficient data for comprehensive analysis of Vicente’s wealth accumulation over the years, noting that Vicente has been with government since the 1980s.

The anti-graft investigators said the complainant could have presented respondent’s Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net worth (SALN) prior to 2005 in order to establish or estimate respondent’s beginning net worth.

The beginning net worth must be considered for purposes of determining whether the respondents’ disposable income was more than enough to justify their property acquisitions and whether they possessed the financial capability to acquire or purchase properties as reported in their SALN.

Complainant reportedly based its allegation of unexplained wealth by examining respondents’ SALNs from 2005 to 2014 and their income in the said period.

While 2005 was used as the base year, the anti-graft office observed that the real and personal assets acquired by respondents prior to 2005 were lumped together and their value of P30.9 million was included in the computation for funds outflow in 2005.

Proceeds from sale of real estate obtained prior to 2005 amounting to P3.7 million were included as part of source of income for 2005, and proceeds and payment of loan of P30 million was unexplained.

The anti-graft investigators said the erroneous inclusion of said items in the computation of respondent’s net worth in 2005 was “highly inequitable” as it was not truly reflective of the respondents’ value in said year.

 “Unfortunately, complainant’s computation of alleged unexplained wealth is vague, inaccurate and misleading that the prima facie presumption is not sustained,” the resolution reads.

The Ombudsman also dismissed the criminal aspect of the complaint for lack of basis and the administrative complaint for grave misconduct, serious dishonesty and violation of Statements and Disclosure as provided under Republic Act No. 6713 for failure to satisfy the substantial evidence requirement in view of the findings in the forfeiture complaint.  JMO (FREEMAN)