Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 483 views

    Ong v. Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    Joycee Armillo
    The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of R.A. 1379, which allows for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth from public officials. The Court found that the law was not void for vagueness, as it sufficiently defined unlawfully and lawfully acquired property. The law also did not violate the presumption of innocence, as it merely creates a prima facie presumption that disproportionate wealth was unlawfully acquired, which can be rebutted by the defendant. The Court therefore dismissed the petitioner's claim that the law defining ill-gotten wealth was unconstitutional.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ong v. Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    Joycee Armillo
    483 views1 page
    The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of R.A. 1379, which allows for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth from public officials. The Court found that the law was not void for vagueness, as it sufficiently defined unlawfully and lawfully acquired property. The law also did not violate the presumption of innocence, as it merely creates a prima facie presumption that disproportionate wealth was unlawfully acquired, which can be rebutted by the defendant. The Court therefore dismissed the petitioner's claim that the law defining ill-gotten wealth was unconstitutional.

    Original Title

    (82) Ong v. Sandiganbayan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of R.A. 1379, which allows for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth from public officials. The Court found that the law was not void for vagueness, as it sufficiently defined unlawfully and lawfully acquired property. The law also did not violate the presumption of innocence, as it merely creates a prima facie presumption that disproportionate wealth was unlawfully acquired, which can be rebutted by the defendant. The Court therefore dismissed the petitioner's claim that the law defining ill-gotten wealth was unconstitutional.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    483 views1 page

    Ong v. Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    Joycee Armillo
    The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of R.A. 1379, which allows for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth from public officials. The Court found that the law was not void for vagueness, as it sufficiently defined unlawfully and lawfully acquired property. The law also did not violate the presumption of innocence, as it merely creates a prima facie presumption that disproportionate wealth was unlawfully acquired, which can be rebutted by the defendant. The Court therefore dismissed the petitioner's claim that the law defining ill-gotten wealth was unconstitutional.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Ong v.

    Sandiganbayan
    G.R. No. 126858 | September 16, 2005

    Facts:

    A complaint was filed by Congressman Gillego against Petitioner Joe U. Ong, then Commissioner of BIR,
    has allegedly amassed properties worth disproportionately more than his lawful income. Under Sec. 2 of
    R.A. 1379, a preliminary inquiry should be conducted and that the petitioner was directed to submit his
    counter-affidavit and other controverting evidence. Instead of complying with the order, petitioner filed a
    motion claiming that the Order allegedly violates his right to due process and to be presumed innocent
    because it requires him to produce evidence to exculpate himself. A resolution concluded that the properties
    acquired by him during is incumbency are manifestly and grossly disproportionate to his salary as a public
    official and his other lawful income which directed the filing by the Ombudsman with the OSG, of a petition
    for recovery of ill-gotten wealth under R.A. 1379 in relation to RA 3018 and R.A. 6770. Petitioner presented
    several affirmative defenses, such as the alleged deprivation of their right to due process considering that
    no preliminary investigation was conducted as regards Nelly Ong, and the nullity of the proceedings before
    the Ombudsman because the latter, who acted both as investigator and adjudicator in the determination of
    the existence of probable cause for the filing of the case, will also prosecute the same. Moreover, the
    Petition filed before the Sandiganbayan also allegedly failed to state a cause of action because RA 1379 is
    unconstitutional as it is vague and does not sufficiently define ill-gotten wealth and how it can be determined
    in violation of the non-delegation of legislative power provision, and insofar as it disregards the presumption
    of innocence by requiring them to show cause why the properties in question should not be declared
    property of the state.

    Issue:
    Won R.A. 1379 is void-for-vagueness

    Held:
    No. Void-for-vagueness is when a statute forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that man
    of common intelligence must necessarily guess as to its meaning and differ as to its application, that law is
    deemed void. Such kind of statute violates the first essential requisite of due process of law because it
    denies the accused the right to be informed of the charged against him.

    In the present case, the law defines the sufficient particularity unlawfully acquired property of a public officer
    or employees and provides a definition of what is legitimately acquired property. The public is given fair
    notice of what acts are proscribed and does not offended the basic concept of fairness and due process of
    the constitution. Neither the presumption of innocence is violated under Sec. 2 of 1932 which states that
    property acquired by a public officer or employee during his incumbency in an amount which is manifestly
    out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and the
    income from legitimately acquired property shall be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired.
    Furthermore, it has been frequently decided, in case of statutory crimes, that no constitutional provision is
    violated by a statue providing that proof by the State of some material facts or facts shall constitute prima
    facie evidence of guilt, and that then the burden is shifted to the defendant for the purpose of showing that
    such act or acts are innocent and are committed without any unlawful intention.

    You might also like