THE Sandiganbayan First Division has ordered
the seizure by government of 12 parcels of land owned by a
retired junior military officer and adjudged to have been
unlawfully acquired.
S/Sgt. Geminiano S. Crisante was unable to
explain how he was able to obtain ownership in 1988 of eight
residential lots and buildings, three farm lots, a 6.6-hectare
fishpond and warehouses all valued at P1.58 million when his
payroll records from 1978 through 1987 showed that his salaries
only amounted to a total of P143,378.
Based on records, Crisante joined the
now-defunct Philippine Constabulary in 1970 and acquired the
disputed properties while in active military service.
In his defense, he claimed that he engaged in
timber-farming and agricultural businesses to augment his income
but failed to produce authenticated documents for the supposed
log deliveries and payment receipts when required to do so.
In its decision promulgated last April 22,
the court noted that RA 1379 (State Forfeiture of Unlawfully
Acquired Assets by a Public Official) creates a presumption that
properties found to be grossly disproportionate to the lawful
income of a public officer are ill-gotten.
"Respondent failed to overcome this
presumption by presenting evidence to show that he engaged in
other lawful business, such as receipts, bank statements, and
other pertinent documents. In his testimony, he merely claimed
that he did not know or could not remember details pertaining to
his businesses," the Sandiganbayan ruling said.
In 1989, when the forfeiture complaint
against him was already pending, Crisante secured a P1.6 million
loan from the BPI-Agricultural Development Bank using 10 parcels
of land as collateral, seven of which were subject of the case.
In the same year, he obtained another
P750,000 loan from the Cebu International Finance Corp. secured
by three bulldozers and a four-year-old Nissan Stanza sedan
which were also identified for confiscation by the Office of the
Ombudsman.
Crisante then defaulted on loan service
payments resulting to the foreclosure of his collaterals.
Regardless of this, the Sandigan-bayan said
the same properties are still "within reach of this court" as
provided under Section 1 (b) in relation to Section 6 and 10 of
RA 1379 covering dummy ownership or transfer by sale or other
forms of conveyance of assets identified for forfeiture.
"Real properties of the respondent which he acquired through
unexplained wealth, though subsequently transferred to third
persons, are still subject to forfeiture by the government," it
pointed out. – Peter J.G. Tabingo
