G.R. No.

174431

BUGARIN vs REPUBLIC of the

PHILIPPINES

August 6, 2012

I.

Facts:

A. The late Jolly Bugarin was the Director of the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) when Ferdinand E. Marcos was still the president of the country
from 1965-1986.
B. After the downfall of Marcos in 1986, the new Aquino administration, through the
Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), filed a petition for forfeiture of
properties (of Bugarin) under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 1379 in the Sandiganbayan.
C. The Sandiganbayan dismissed the petition for insufficiency of evidence.
D. Bugarin filed a motion for reconsideration but was deinied by the Sandiganbayan
thus the PCGG filed for the dismissal of the case before the Supreme Court on Dec.
18, 1991.
E. The Supreme Court found manifest errors and misapprehension of facts leading it "to
pore over the evidence extant from the records,"
F.

The Supreme Court found Bugarin to have amassed wealth

totaling P2,170,163.00 from 1968 to 1980 against his total income for the period
1967 to 1980 totaling only 766,548.00.

G. With this, the Court held that Bugarins properties, which were visibly out of
proportion to his lawful income from 1968 to 1980, should be forfeited in favor of the
government
II.

Reliefs proposed for:

A. Petitioners claim that they have been deprived of their right to due process of law
when the Sandiganbayan ordered for the forfeiture of Bugarins properties.
B. They fault the selection process laid down in the said case which purportedly denied
them the opportunity to show that "not all of the late Bugarins properties may be
forfeited."
C. Petitioners want another round of trial or hearing be conducted for "further reception
of evidence" to determine which among the properties enumerated in the
Republic case are ill-gotten wealth.
Issue: WHETHER OR NOT BUGARINS HEIRS SHOULD BE ACCORDED THEIR RIGHT TO
DUE PROCESS.
III.

Court Ruling:

The petition is DENIED and the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan are AFFIRMED.
The Supreme Court ruled against petitioners Bugarin. The Supreme Court cited the
following:
Section 2 of R.A. No. 1379 provides that in Filing of Petition. Whenever any public officer
or employee has acquired during his incumbency an amount of property 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, said property
shall be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired
Thus, when the government, through the PCGG, filed forfeiture proceedings against
Bugarin, it took on the burden of proving the following:
1. The public official or employee acquired personal or real properties during his/her
incumbency;
2. This acquisition is manifestly disproportionate to his/her salary or other legitimate
income; and
3. The existence of which gives rise to a presumption that these same properties were
acquired prima facie unlawfully.