By Macon Araneta | FilAm Star Correspondent
Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales ordered the filing of forfeiture cases before the Sandiganbayan against former Philippine National Police (PNP) Chief Alan Purisima for allegedly amassing PHP 29.2 million in ill-gotten wealth during his time in office.
In a resolution, Morales also ordered forfeiture cases against Purisima’s wife, Ma. Ramona
Lydia Purisima, and their sons Rainier Van Albert, Eumir Von Andrei, Alan Jr, and Jason Arvi.
The forfeiture cases intend to recover the alleged unexplained wealth accumulated by Purisima and his family members.
Morales also ordered the filing of nine counts of perjury against Purisima for willful and deliberate failure to disclose all his properties in his Statement of Assets Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) from 2006 to 2014.
Purisima was found guilty of grave misconduct, serious dishonesty and acquisition of unexplained wealth and was dismissed from the service.
“In the event of separation from the service, the penalty is convertible to a fine equivalent to respondent’s salary for one year,” the Ombudsman said in a decision.
The consolidated resolution covers 15 docketed complaints filed by the FFIB of the OMB-MOLEO, Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption, Coalition of Filipino Consumers and Jose Teddie del Rosario.
Ombudsman investigators said that as then PNP chief, Purisima received salaries, allowances and other benefits of PHP 9,550,621.44 for 14 years from 2000 to 2014. His wife received a gross total compensation and other income of PHP 6,382,530.84 as an employee of the Armed Forces of the Philippines Mutual Benefits Association Inc. during the same period.
“Thus, their combined lawful earnings amounted to PHP 15,933,152.28 only,” the Ombudsman said.
Purisima declared business interests and financial connections with RAS Construction from 2000 to 2006 as a partner, I@Link Computer Center from 2002 to 2006 as the proprietor, Aliakbar Hauling and Trucking Services from 2008 to 2014 and EALRAJ Corp., a family owned general merchandising company, from 2012 to 2014.
Ombudsman investigators said Purisima’s net worth for 2014 was PHP 16,762,948.85.
Based on the investigation and analysis, Purisima and his family accumulated unexplained wealth of at least PHP 29,292,459.92. They consisted of real properties in Aulo, Palayan City, residential land in Zaragosa, Nueva Ecija, 11 parcels of land in Talisay, Batangas, and land in San Ildefonso, Ilocos Sur. The personal properties were firearms acquired from 2010 to 2014.
Morales said the property in Palayan City are lots covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). She said her office referred the issue to the concerned government agency.
Also, Purisima was found to have other properties and business investments under his name and that of his wife or sons, “which he failed to declare in his SALN.”
On top of the Purisima couple’s combined salaries are their earnings from declared business interests, which would put their combined net worth at PHP 16.7 million in 2014.
Based on the records of the Bureau of Immigration, Purisima made frequent travels abroad from 2001 to 2014. He had a record of 19 foreign trips, 12 of which were official in nature, while seven of his foreign trips ‘‘were financed from private funds.’’ Respondent Ramona had 19 travels abroad; Rainier, 10; Eumir, four; Alan Jr., five; and Jayson, seven.
“Said travels show that they lived a lavish lifestyle which is not commensurate with their declared earnings and financial resources,” the Ombudsman said..
The Ombudsman said Purisima paid an income tax of PHP 5 million only in November 2014, which Morales said was suspect. Morales also said that Purisima revised his Income Tax Returns (ITRs) from 2004 and 2013 as an apparent response to the Ombudsman’s lifestyle check on him.
“A closer scrutiny of respondent P/DG Purisima’s amended ITRs also reveals they are replete with badges of falsity and misdeclaration. The reported income from businesses is not supported by financial statements and taxes withheld and remitted by withholding agents,” Morales said.
The Ombudsman set aside Purisima’s explanation that properties registered under his sons were sourced from their respective incomes.
“There is no sufficient proof that reasonably supports the financial or earning capacity of P/DG Purisima’s children, the inevitable conclusion is that their acquisitions and investments were made possible through the funds of P/DG Purisima himself who failed to account for the sources of these,” Morales said.