OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. NIETO A. RACHO

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. NIETO A.
RACHO
G.R. No. 185685, 31 January 2011, Second Division (Mendoza, J.)
DYHP Balita Action Team reported to Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas a concerned citizen's
complaint regarding the unexplained wealth of Racho, then Chief of the Special Investigation Division of
the Bureau of Internal Revenue, BPI Cebu and PCI Bank. The Ombudsman conducted an investigation
and found that Racho did not declare his bank deposits in his SALN so the Ombudsman filed a Complaint
for Falsification of Public Document and Dishonesty against Racho. Subsequently, the Graft Prosecution
Officer did not give weight to the bank documents because they were mere photocopies so he dismissed
the complaint for dishonesty due to insufficiency of evidence. On review, Director Virginia Palanca
decreed that Racho's act of not declaring said bank deposits in his SALN constituted falsification and
dishonesty. She found Racho guilty of the administrative charges against him and imposed the penalty
of dismissal from service with forfeiture of all benefits and perpetual disqualification to hold public
office.
The case was brought up to the CA where Racho explained that he was not the sole owner of the bank
deposits. To support his position he presented the Joint Affidavit of his brothers and nephew which
stated that they intended to put up a business. Also, through a Special Power of Attorney, they
designated Racho as the trustee of their investments in the business venture they were intending to put
up and that they authorized him to deposit their money in the herein questioned bank accounts. The CA
ordered a reinvestigation. However, after its investigation, the Office of the Ombudsman found no
reason to deviate from its decision to declare Racho guilty. Racho filed a petition for review with the CA.
The CA opined that in charges of dishonesty, intention is an important element in its commission. In this
case, it found that Racho never denied the existence of the bank accounts and even attempted to
explain the situation. Thus, there was lack of intent to conceal information.
ISSUE:
Whether Racho’s non-disclosure of the bank deposits in his SALN constitutes dishonesty
RULING:
Yes. By mandate of law, every public official or government employee is required to make a complete
disclosure of his assets, liabilities and net worth in order to suppress any questionable accumulation of
wealth because the latter usually results from non-disclosure of such matters. Hence, a public official or
employee who has acquired money or property manifestly disproportionate to his salary or his other
lawful income shall be prima facie presumed to have illegally acquired it.
It should be understood that what the law seeks to curtail is acquisition of unexplained wealth. Where
the source of the undisclosed wealth can be properly accounted, then it is explained wealth which the
law does not penalize.
In this case, Racho not only failed to disclose his bank accounts containing substantial deposits but he
also failed to satisfactorily explain the accumulation of his wealth or even identify the sources of such
accumulated wealth. The documents that Racho presented, like those purportedly showing that his
brothers and nephew were financially capable of sending or contributing large amounts of money for
their business, do not prove that they did contribute or remit money for their supposed joint business
venture.
The Court, thus, holds that the CA erred in finding him guilty of simple neglect of duty only. As defined,
simple neglect of duty is the failure to give proper attention to a task expected from an employee
resulting from either carelessness or indifference. In this case, the discrepancies in the statement of
Racho’s assets are not the results of mere carelessness. On the contrary, there is substantial evidence
pointing to a conclusion that Racho is guilty of dishonesty because of his unmistakable intent to cover up
the true source of his questioned bank deposits.

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. NIETO A. RACHO

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. NIETO A. RACHO

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

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. NIETO A. RACHO

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. NIETO A.

G.R. No. 185685, 31 January 2011, Second Division (Mendoza, J.)

You might also like