Ombudsman orders forfeiture of Ligot’s assets

The Office of the Ombudsman has ordered the initiation of additional forfeiture proceedings against former military comptroller Jacinto Ligot and members of his family to recover their alleged unexplained wealth amounting to over P55 million.

Acting Ombudsman Orlando Casimiro directed the filing of a supplemental petition for forfeiture before the Sandiganbayan against Ligot, his wife Erlinda, daughter Riza, sons Paulo and Miguel, brother-in-law Edgardo Yambao and a Gilda Alfonso-Velasquez.

Casimiro’s order was based on a complaint filed by the Ombudsman’s Field Investigation Office, which alleged that Ligot acquired other assets in the form of bank deposits and investment accounts. These had not been included in the earlier forfeiture case filed against him and his family.

The amounts were allegedly deposited in the Armed Forces and Police Savings and Loan Association, Inc., Equitable PCI Bank, BPI, Landbank of the Philippines, United Overseas Bank, Metrobank and Citicorp Financial Services and Insurance Brokerage Philippines, Inc.

According to the Office of the Ombudsman, the accounts are considered part of the web of accounts of Ligot and his family.

Ligot and his family were earlier slapped with a P135-million forfeiture case. The Sandiganbayan has since ordered the freezing of their assets which the Ligots contested.

Casimiro also ordered the filing of criminal cases against retired police official Eduardo Matillano for allegedly failing to file his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) from 1994 to 2000, and 2004. The Ombudsman’s Fact-Finding Investigation Bureau found that no SALN records of Matillano’s were available for these years in the Records and Management Division of the Philippine National Police.

Also ordered slapped with a sexual harassment case was Supt. Cesario Darantinao Jr, who is assigned to Davao del Sur.

Darantinao was accused of requesting sexual favors from a policewoman who was also his subordinate.

He allegedly threatened to relieve her from her assignment if she would not give in to his advances.

“The sexual advances of the respondent were made a condition to the continued employment of the complainant. The complained acts of respondent also resulted in an intimidating, hostile and offensive environment for the complainant,” the Office of the Ombudsman said.