Sandigan junks appeal not to forfeit assets of ex-police general

MANILA, Philippines – The anti-graft court Sandiganbayan denied the motion for reconsideration filed by former police general Danilo Mangila regarding the forfeiture of his assets amounting to nearly P16 million.

Mangila served as director of the Philippine Nation Police Traffic Management Group and assistant secretary of the Presidential Anti-Smuggling Group during the Arroyo administration.

“Wherefore, finding the matters raised by respondent…as mere rehash of his previous arguments, there being no cogent reason to modify, much less reverse our assailed decision…the instant motion for reconsideration…is denied for lack of merit,” the Sandiganbayan said in an 8-page resolution penned by Associate Justice Georgina Hidalgo and issued on September 11.

Associate Justices Ma. Theresa Dolores Gomez Estoesta and Zaldy Trespeses concurred with the decision.

The Sandiganbayan last July ordered the forfeiture of Mangila’s unexplained wealth after he failed to credibly explain how he had acquired 6 real estate properties with a combined value of P9.103 million, and motor vehicles – 12 cars and 4 motorcycles – worth P7.375 million.

The anti-graft court also found Mangila had enough money for 18 trips to various countries, including Japan, the United States, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, France, and Australia from 1993 to 2005. His wife, meanwhile, went overseas 16 times. As such, family expenditures of around P2.222 million and P115,000 in undeclared business interests were also taken into account.

The Sandiganbayan noted that Mangila only made P2.006 million in salaries and P1.003 million in allowances or just over P3 million during those years.

Mangila in his appeal said he declared his properties in his Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN). He also wanted his properties in Lagro, Quezon City, to be exempted from the forfeiture ruling, claiming those were part of his ancestral home acquired through a loan from the Government Service Insurance System.

But the Sandiganbayan argued that declaring a property as part of the SALN does not prove lawful acquisition. The court also noted that Mangila failed to prove that the properties in Lagro, Quezon City, were part of his ancestral home.

“Other than the bare testimony of respondent Mangila that the above-described properties are their family homes or constituted as such, he did not offer any proof to his claim. Without any proof, the protective mantle of the law from levy, attachment, and execution cannot be availed of,” the anti-graft court said. – Rappler.com