Whatever happened to Lacuna’s “ill-gotten wealth” case?

THIS is the question that is now being raised in some quarters in Manila after the Third Division of the Sandiganbayan early last year rejected the appeal filed by former Manila Vice Mayor Danilo ‘Danny’ Lacuna in relation to some his and his wife’s properties in Manila and Tagaytay ordered confiscated in favor of the State after being found to have been “unlawfully acquired” by the couple.

Lacuna is the father of Manila Vice Mayor Ma. Shielah Lacuna, who is now running for mayor in the May 9, 2022 elections.

Based on the published resolutions and decisions of the Sandiganbayan, the last entry on the case of the Lacunas was on January 8, 2021 (SB-12-CVL-0002), when the court rejected the motion for reconsideration they filed.

The court noted that the arguments the accused raised were mere “substantive reiterations” of those they made while the forfeiture cases against them are still on trial.

“These same arguments were already passed upon by this Court in the assailed Decision

and it finds no significant basis to either amend, modify, alter or even reverse its earlier findings,” said the ruling penned by Associate Justice Bernelito R. Fernandez, with the concurrence of Associate Justice Amaro Cabotaje-Tang and Associate Justice Sarah Jane Fernandez.

Similarly, the Third Division also threw the fresh argument raised by the Lacunas citing the forfeiture cases of the Marcos family, noting that the decisions of the other divisions of the Sandiganbayan in the Marcos cases are not “binding precedents” to the division.

“We should also underscore, as correctly argued by the petitioner Republic, that decisions of the Sandiganbayan in the Marcos cases are not binding precedents,” the decision said.

“The doctrine of stare decisis becomes operative only when judicial precedents are set

by pronouncements of the Supreme Court to the exclusion of lower courts (UCPB vs Spouses Uy, GR No. 204039, January 10, 2018).

“Likewise, any decision rendered by the other divisions of this Court have no binding effect on the decisions rendered by this Division,” the court told the Lacunas.

Based on court records, the Sandiganbayan ordered the forfeiture of the assets of the Lacunas in a decision also penned by Fernandez on July 7, 2020, in the aggregate amount P9,003,879.42.

The decision was based on the investigation conducted by the Office of Ombudsman that started in 2006.

On April 4, 2006, the Ombudsman formally charged for violation of Article 183 (perjury) and Article 171 (falsification) under the Revised Penal Code and violation of RA 6713 (Code of Ethical Standards) for the non-filing of some his assets in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net worth (SALN) as a public official.

Aside from these, the Ombudsman also slapped Lacuna of dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service.

Although the Ombudsman on February 21, 2012, dismissed the criminal aspects of its complaint against Lacuna, it nevertheless forwarded to the Sandiganbayan a case for violation of RA 1379 (forfeiture of unlawfully acquired assets of public officials).

In its July 7, 2020 ruling, the Sandiganbayan sided with the findings of the Ombudsman that Lacuna amassed assets and properties “manifestly out of proportion” to his salary as a public official.

“Clearly, the total cost of the acquired properties of the respondent-spouses from 1998 to 2004 of P20,707,168.84, is manifestly out of proportion from their income (of P11,703,289.42) as the difference of P9,003,879.42 is too large if the six-year period from 1998 to 2004 is to be considered,” the decision said.

Among the questionable assets of the Lacunas are: a house and lot in Bacood, Sta. Mesa, Manila; a house and lot in Saklolo corner Biyaya Sts. in Sampaloc, Manila acquired in 1999; a lot located in Tagaytay City acquired in 2000; a Honda CRV and a Hyundai Starex; and shares of stocks worth P6,605,000 as indicated in Lacuna’s SALN.

“This disproportion creates a disputable presumption that the properties acquired from 1998 to 2004 were unlawfully acquired and that the respondent-spouses have the burden of rebutting the presumption,” the last decision reads further.