SALN Review by Head of Office Cannot Bar Ombudsman From Filing Charges

The Supreme Court has settled an important question for public officials and employees: does a head of office's duty to review a subordinate's Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) shield that subordinate from criminal prosecution? In Carabeo v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. Nos. 190580-81, February 21, 2011), the Court answered no — the Ombudsman's independent power to investigate and prosecute cannot be held hostage by an internal office procedure.

The Facts of the Case

Petitioner Liberato Carabeo was the City Treasurer of Parañaque. Following a lifestyles check conducted by the Department of Finance's Revenue Integrity Protection Service (DOF-RIPS), the DOF charged him before the Office of the Ombudsman with violations of Section 7 of Republic Act No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.

The charges arose from alleged failures to disclose personal properties, including three motor vehicles, misdeclaring the acquisition cost of a real property in Laguna, and falsely declaring his net worth in his SALN for 2003.

Before trial, Carabeo sought to raise two preliminary issues. First, he argued that his head of office should have informed him of errors in his SALN and given him a chance to correct them under Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6713 (the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees). Second, he argued that the cases were premature because he had a pending petition questioning the validity of Executive Order No. 259, which authorized the lifestyles check.

The Sandiganbayan excluded both issues from the pre-trial order. Carabeo elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via certiorari.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Sandiganbayan's resolutions.

On the validity of E.O. 259. The Court noted that this issue had become moot. In a prior decision, Carabeo v. Court of Appeals (G.R. Nos. 178000 and 178003, December 4, 2009), the Court already held that the validity of E.O. 259 was immaterial. Any concerned citizen may file charges of corruption or illegal conduct against a government official if the evidence warrants. The DOF-RIPS investigators were within their rights to file charges with or without E.O. 259.

On the SALN review requirement. Carabeo argued that Section 10 of R.A. 6713 required his head of office to alert him to deficiencies in his SALN and give him the chance to correct them before any charge could be filed. He distinguished his case from Pleyto v. PNP-CIDG (G.R. No. 169982, November 23, 2007), pointing out that in Pleyto, the reviewing authority was not the head of office.

The Court rejected this distinction. The critical fact was that the Office of the Ombudsman, not the DOF-RIPS, filed the criminal cases. The Ombudsman is vested with the sole power to investigate and prosecute, motu proprio or on complaint of any person, any illegal act or omission of a public officer or employee. This power cannot be made dependent on the prior action of another office.

Formal vs. Substantive Defects

The Court drew a crucial distinction. The notice-and-correction procedure under Section 10 of R.A. 6713 applies only to formal defects — whether the SALN was submitted on time, is complete, and is in proper form. It does not apply to substantive defects.

Carabeo's charges involved falsification of the assets side of his SALN and declaring a false net worth. These are substantive, not formal, defects. As the Court explained, it would be "absurd" to require heads of offices to verify the truth of every statement in a subordinate's SALN and demand correction of whatever lies these contain. The responsibility for truth in SALNs belongs to the subordinates who prepared them.

Note: The exact text of Section 10 of R.A. 6713 is not available in the ASG law library. The description above is based solely on the Supreme Court's discussion in Carabeo.

Practical Takeaways

• The Ombudsman's power is independent. No internal office procedure, including SALN review, can bar the Ombudsman from investigating or prosecuting a public official.
• Section 10 of R.A. 6713 covers only formal defects. The notice-and-correction procedure applies to late filing, incompleteness, or improper form — not to false declarations or misrepresentations.
• Truthfulness is the filer's responsibility. Heads of offices are not required to audit the substantive accuracy of their subordinates' SALNs.
• Falsifying a SALN carries serious consequences. It can lead to charges under both the Anti-Graft Law and the Revised Penal Code, regardless of whether a head of office reviewed the document.
• For real estate professionals and public officials: Ensure all properties, acquisition costs, and net worth declarations in SALNs are accurate and complete. A head of office's failure to catch an error will not excuse the filer from criminal liability.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.