Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 81563 December 19, 1989
AMADO C. ARIAS, petitioner,
vs.
THE SANDIGANBAAN, respondent.
G.R. No. 8!51! December 19, 1989
CRESENCIO D. DATA, petitioner,
vs.
THE SANDIGANBAAN, respondent.
Paredes Law Office for petitioner.

GUTIERRE", #R., J.:
The facts of this case are stated in the dissenting opinion of Justice
Carolina C. ri!o"A#uino $hich follo$s this %a&orit' opinion. The
dissent substantiall' reiterates the draft report prepared b' Justice
ri!o"A#uino as a $or(ing basis for the Court)s deliberations $hen
the case $as being discussed and for the subse#uent votes of
concurrence or dissent on the action proposed b' the report.
There is no dispute over the events $hich transpired. The division of
the Court is on the conclusions to be dra$n fro% those events and the
facts insofar as the t$o petitioners are concerned. The %a&orit' is of
the vie$ that Messrs. Arias and *ata should be ac#uitted on grounds
of reasonable doubt. The Court feels that the #uantu% of evidence
needed to convict petitioners Arias and *ata be'ond reasonable
doubt, as co"conspirators in the conspirac' to cause undue in&ur' to
the overn%ent through the irregular disburse%ent and e+penditure
of public funds, has not been satisfied.
,n ac#uitting the petitioners, the Court agrees $ith the -olicitor"
eneral
1
$ho, in ./ pages of his consolidated %anifestation and
%otion, reco%%ended that Messrs. Arias and *ata be ac#uitted of the
cri%e charged, $ith costs de oficio. Earlier, Tanodba'an -pecial
Prosecutor Eleuterio 0. uerrero had also reco%%ended the dropping
of Arias fro% the infor%ation before it $as filed.
There is no #uestion about the need to ferret out and convict public
officers $hose acts have %ade the bidding out and construction of
public $or(s and high$a's s'non'%ous $ith graft or cri%inal
inefficienc' in the public e'e. 1o$ever, the re%ed' is not to indict and
&ail ever' person $ho %a' have ordered the pro&ect, $ho signed a
docu%ent incident to its construction, or $ho had a hand so%e$here
in its i%ple%entation. The careless use of the conspirac' theor' %a'
s$eep into &ail even innocent persons $ho %a' have been %ade
un$itting tools b' the cri%inal %inds $ho engineered the defraudation.
2nder the -andiganba'an)s decision in this case, a depart%ent
secretar', bureau chief, co%%ission chair%an, agenc' head, and all
chief auditors $ould be e#uall' culpable for ever' cri%e arising fro%
disburse%ents $hich the' have approved. The depart%ent head or
chief auditor $ould be guilt' of conspirac' si%pl' because he $as the
last of a long line of officials and e%plo'ees $ho acted upon or affi+ed
their signatures to a transaction. uilt %ust be pre%ised on a %ore
(no$ing, personal, and deliberate participation of each individual $ho
is charged $ith others as part of a conspirac'.
The records sho$ that the si+ accused persons $ere convicted in
connection $ith the overpricing of land purchased b' the Bureau of
Public 3or(s for the Mangahan 0lood$a' Pro&ect. The pro&ect $as
intended to ease the perennial floods in Mari(ina and Pasig, Metro
Manila.
The accused $ere prosecuted because 45,//6 s#uare %eters of
7riceland7 in Rosario, Pasig $hich had been assessed at P8.// a
s#uare %eter in 459: $ere sold as residential land7 in 459. for P././/
a s#uare %eter. The land for the flood$a' $as ac#uired through
negotiated purchase,
3e agree $ith the -olicitor"eneral that the assessor)s ta+ valuation
of P8.// per s#uare %eter of land in Rosario, Pasig, Metro Manila is
co%pletel' unrealistic and arbitrar' as the basis for conviction.
1erein lies the first error of the trial court.
,t %ust be stressed that the petitioners are not charged $ith
conspirac' in the falsification of public docu%ents or preparation of
spurious supporting papers. The charge is causing undue in&ur' to the
overn%ent and giving a private part' un$arranted benefits through
%anifest partialit', evident bad faith, or ine+cusable negligence.
The alleged undue in&ur' in a nutshell is the overn%ent purchase of
land in Pasig, Ri;al for P./.// a s#uare %eter instead of the P8.//
value per s#uare %eter appearing in the ta+ declarations and fi+ed b'
the %unicipal assessor, not b' the lando$ner.
The -andiganba'an, $ithout an' clear factual basis for doing so has
assu%ed that the P8.// per s#uare %eter value fi+ed b' the assessor
in the ta+ declarations $as the correct %ar(et value of the Mangahan
propert' and if the overn%ent purchased the land for P./.// a
s#uare %eter, it follo$s that it %ust have suffered undue in&ur'.
The -olicitor eneral e+plains $h' this conclusion is erroneous<
4. No undue injury was caused to the Government
a. The P80.00 per square rneter acquisition cost
is just fair and reasonabe.
,t bears stress that the Agleha% propert' $as ac#uired
through negotiated purchase. ,t $as, therefor, nothing %ore
than an ordinar' contract of sale $here the purchase price
had to be arrived at b' agree%ent bet$een the parties and
could never be left to the discretion of one of the
contracting parties =Article 469:, Ne$ Civil Code>. 0or it is
the essence of a contract of sale that there %ust be a
%eeting of the %inds bet$een the seller and the bu'er
upon the thing $hich is the ob&ect of the contract and upon
the price =Article 4698, Ne$ Civil Code>. Necessaril', the
parties have to negotiate the reasonableness of the price,
ta(ing into consideration such other factors as location,
potentials, surroundings and capabilities. After ta(ing the
foregoing pre%ises into consideration, the parties have,
thus, arrived at the a%ount of P./.// per s#uare %eter as
the fair and reasonable price for the Agleha% propert'.
,t bears stress that the prosecution failed to adduce
evidence to prove that the true and fair %ar(et value in
459. of the Agleha% propert' $as indeed P8.// per
s#uare %eter onl' as stated b' the assessor in the ta+
declaration =E+hibit 3>. ?n the contrar', the prosecution)s
principal $itness Pedro ?col, the Assistant Municipal
Assessor of Pasig, ad%itted that the purchase price of
P./.// per s#uare %eter paid for the Agleha% propert' as
stated in the *eed of -ale =E+hibit > is reasonable =tsn,
August 45,45.:, p. @/> and fair =!bid, p. 9A>B that )the value
of lands $ithin the to$n of Pasig ranges fro% P./.// to
P8//.//) =!bid, p. @4>B that the Agleha% propert' is 7around
:// %eters7 fro% ?rtigas Avenue, 7ad&acent to the e+isting
Ceongson DCia%sonE -ubdivision ... and near Eastland
ar%ent Building7 =!bid, pp. 4@"4:>B that said propert' is
surrounded b' factories, co%%ercial establish%ents and
residential subdivisions =!bid, pp. 9:"96>B that the P8.// per
s#uare %eter assessed valuation of the Agleha% propert'
appearing on the ta+ declaration =E+hibit 3> $as based on
actual use onl' =bid, pp. @A"@9>, it being the unifor% rate
for all ricefields in Pasig irrespective of their locations =!bid,
pp. 9@"96> and did not ta(e into account the e+istence of
%an' factories and subdivisions in the area =!bid., pp. @8"
@9, 9@"96>, and that the assessed value is different fro%
and al$a's lo$er than the actual %ar(et value =!bid, pp.
@@"@:>. =At pp. @8A"@85, Rollo>
A negotiated purchase %a' usuall' entail a higher bu'ing price than
one arrived at in the course of e+propriation proceedings.
,n "#port Processin$ %one &uthority v. 'uay =465 -CRA :/8, :4/
D45.9E> $e struc( do$n the %artial la$ decree that pegged &ust
co%pensation in e%inent do%ain cases to the assessed value stated
b' a lando$ner in his ta+ declaration or fi+ed b' the %unicipal
assessor, $hichever is lo$er. ?ther factors %ust be considered.
These factors %ust be deter%ined b' a court of &ustice and not b'
%unicipal e%plo'ees.
,n the instant case, the assessor)s lo$ evaluation, in the fi+ing of
$hich the lando$ner had no participation, $as used for a purpose
infinitel' %ore $eight' than %ere e+propriation of land. ,t for%s the
basis for a cri%inal conviction.
The Court is not prepared to sa' that P./.// to P8//.// a s#uare
%eter for land in Pasig in 459. $ould be a fair evaluation. The value
%ust be deter%ined in e%inent do%ain proceedings b' a co%petent
court. 3e are certain, ho$ever, that it cannot be P8.// a s#uare
%eter. 1ence, the decision, insofar as it sa's that the 7correct7
valuation is P8.// per s#uare %eter and on that basis convicted that
petitioners of causing undue in&ur', da%age, and pre&udice to the
overn%ent because of gross overpricing, is grounded on sha('
foundations.
There can be no overpricing for purposes of a cri%inal conviction
$here no proof adduced during orderl' proceedings has been
presented and accepted.
The Court)s decision, ho$ever, is based on a %ore basic reason.
1erein lies the principal error of the respondent court.
3e $ould be setting a bad precedent if a head of office plagued b' all
too co%%on proble%s"dishonest or negligent subordinates, over$or(,
%ultiple assign%ents or positions, or plain inco%petence is suddenl'
s$ept into a conspirac' conviction si%pl' because he did not
personall' e+a%ine ever' single detail, painsta(ingl' trace ever' step
fro% inception, and investigate the %otives of ever' person involved in
a transaction before affi+ing, his signature as the final approving
authorit'.
There appears to be no #uestion fro% the records that docu%ents
used in the negotiated sale $ere falsified. A (e' ta+ declaration had a
t'pe$ritten nu%ber instead of being %achine"nu%bered. The
registration sta%p%ar( $as antedated and the land reclassified as
residential instead of ricefield. But $ere the petitioners guilt' of
conspirac' in the falsification and the subse#uent charge of causing
undue in in&ur' and da%age to the overn%entF
3e can, in retrospect, argue that Arias should have probed records,
inspected docu%ents, received procedures, and #uestioned persons.
,t is doubtful if an' auditor for a fairl' si;ed office could personay do
all these things in all vouchers presented for his signature. The Court
$ould be as(ing for the i%possible. All heads of offices have to rel' to
a reasonable e+tent )on their subordinates and on the good faith of
those prepare bids, purchase supplies, or enter into negotiations. ,f a
depart%ent secretar' entertains i%portant visitors, the auditor is not
ordinaril' e+pected to call the restaurant about the a%ount of the bill,
#uestion each guest $hether he $as present at the luncheon, in#uire
$hether the correct a%ount of food $as served and
other$ise personay loo( into the rei%burse%ent voucher)s accurac',
propriet', and sufficienc'. There has to be so%e added reason $h' he
should e+a%ine each voucher in such detail. An' e+ecutive head of
even sma govern%ent agencies or co%%issions can attest to the
volu%e of papers that %ust be signed. There are hundreds of
docu%ent , letters and supporting paper that routinel' pass through
his hands. The nu%ber in bigger offices or depart%ents is even %ore
appalling.
There should be other grounds than the %ere signature or approval
appearing on a voucher to sustain a conspirac' charge and
conviction.
3as petitioner Arias part of the planning, preparation, and perpetration
of the alleged conspirac' to defraud the govern%entF
Arias &oined the Pasig office on Jul' 45, 459.. The negotiations for the
purchase of the propert' started in 4599. The deed of sale $as
e+ecuted on April @/, 459.. Title $as transferred to the Republic on
June ., 459.. ,n other $ords, the transaction had alread' been
consu%%ated before his arrival. The pre"audit, incident to pa'%ent of
the purchase, $as conducted in the first $ee( of ?ctober, 459.. Arias
points out that apart fro% his signature lin(ing hi% to the signature on
the voucher, there is no evidence transaction. ?n the contrar', the
other co"accused testified the' did not (no$ hi% personall' and none
approached hi% to follo$ up the pa'%ent.
-hould the big a%ount of P4,8@/,:@/.// have caused hi% to
investigate . gate the s%allest detains of the transactionF
Ges, if the land $as reall' $orth onl' P8.// a s#uare %eter. 1o$ever,
if land in Pasig $as alread' $orth P./.// a s#uare %eter at the ti%e,
no $arning bell of intuition $ould have sounded an inner alar%. Cand
along ?rtigas Avenue on the $a' to Pasig is no$ $orth P@/,///.// to
P:/,///.// a square meter. The falsification of the ta+ declaration b'
changing 7riceland7 to 7residential) $as done before Arias $as
assigned to Pasig besides, there is no such thing as 7riceland7 in inner
Metro Manila. -o%e lots in outl'ing or easil' flooded areas %a' still be
planted to rice or (ang(ong but this is onl' until the place is dedicated
to its real purpose $hich is co%%ercial, industrial, or residential. ,f the
-andiganba'an is going to send so%ebod' to &ail for si+ 'ears, the
decision should be based on fir%er foundation.
The -andiganba'an as(ed $h' Arias (ept the docu%ents fro%
?ctober, 459. to June @:, 45.@. Arias e+plained that the rules of the
Co%%ission on Audit re#uire auditors to (eep these d docu%ents
and under no circumstanceto relin#uish custod' to other persons.
Arias $as auditor of the Bureau of Public 3or(s in Pasig up to
-epte%ber 4, 45.4. The seven %onths dela' in the for%al turnover of
custod' to the ne$ auditor $as e+plained b' prosecution $itness
Julito Pesa'co, $ho succeeded hi% as auditor and $ho too( over the
custod' of records in that office.
The %ain reason for the &udg%ent of conviction, for the finding of
undue in&ur' and da%age to the overn%ent is the alleged gross
overprice for the land purchased for the flood$a' pro&ect. Assu%ing
that P./.// is indeed e+orbitant, petitioner Arias cites his testi%on' as
follo$s<
H ,n conducting the pre"audit, did 'ou deter%ine
the reasonableness of the price of the propert'F
A ,n this case, the price has been stated, the
transaction had been consu%%ated and the
corresponding Transfer Certificate of little had
been issued and transferred to the govern%ent
of the Philippines. The auditors have no %ore
lee$a' to return the papers and then #uestion
the purchase price.
H ,s it not a procedure in 'our office that before
pa'%ent is given b' the govern%ent to private
individuals there should be a pre"audit of the
papers and the corresponding chec(s issued to
the vendorF
A Correct, Gour 1onor, but it depends on the
(ind of transaction there is.
H Ges, but in this particular case, the papers
$ere transferred to the govern%ent $ithout
pa'ing the price *id 'ou not consider that rather
odd or unusualF =T-N, page 49, April @9,45.9>.
A No, Gour 1onor.
H 3h' notF
A Because in the *eed of -ale as being noted
there, there is a condition that no pa'%ents $ill
be %ade unless the corresponding title in the
pa'%ent of the Republic is co%%itted is %ade.
H !n this case you said that the tite is aready in
the name of the $overnment(
A )es* )our +onor. The ony thin$ we do is to
determine whether there is an appropriation set
aside to cover the said specification. &s of the
price it is under the soe authority of the proper
officer ma,in$ the sae.
H M' point is this. *id 'ou not consider it
unusual for a piece of propert' to be bought b'
the govern%entB the sale $as consu%%atedB the
title $as issued in favor of the govern%ent
$ithout the price being paid first to the sellerF
A No* )our +onor. !n a cases usuay*
payments made by the $overnment comes ater
than the transfer.
H That is usua procedure utii-ed in road ri$ht
of way transaction(
A Ges, Gour 1onor. =T-N, p. 4., April @9,45.9>.
H And of course as auditor, )$atch"dog) of the
govern%ent there is also that function 'ou are
also called upon b' going over the papers . . .
=T-N, page @@, April @9,45.9>. , ... vouchers
called upon to deter%ine $hether there is an'
irregularit' as at all in this particular transaction,
is it notF
A Ges, Ma)a%.
H And that $as in fact the reason $h' 'ou
scrutini;ed also, not onl' the ta+ declaration but
also the certification b' Mr. Jose and Mr. Cru;F
A As $hat do 'ou %ean of the certification,
%a)a%F
H Certification of Mr. Jose and Mr. Cru; in
relation to P* No. @5A, A The' are not re#uired
docu%ents that an auditor %ust see. =T-N, page
@:, April @9,45.9>.
and continuing<
A ... The #uestioning of the purchase price is
no$ be'ond the authorit' of the auditor because
it is inas%uch as the a%ount involved is be'ond
his counter"signing authorit'. =T-N, page :8,
April @9, 45.9>. =At pp. 48"4A, Petition.
2nderlinings supplied b' petitioner>
The -olicitor eneral su%%ari;es the participation of petitioner *ata
as follo$s<
As regards petitioner *ata)s alleged participation, the
evidence on record sho$s that as the then *istrict
Engineer of the Pasig Engineering *istrict he created a
co%%ittee, headed b' Engr. Priscillo 0ernando $ith
Ricardo Asuncion, Alfonso Mendo;a, Cadislao Cru;, Pedro
1uco% and Carlos Jose, all e%plo'ees of the district office,
as %e%bers, specificall' to handle the Mangahan
0lood$a' Pro&ect, gather and verif' docu%ents, conduct
surve's, negotiate $ith the o$ners for the sale of their lots,
process clai%s and prepare the necessar' docu%entsB he
did not ta(e an' direct and active part in the ac#uisition of
land for the Mangahan flood$a'B it $as the co%%ittee
$hich deter%ined the authenticit' of the docu%ents
presented to the% for processing and on the basis thereof
prepared the corresponding deed of saleB thereafter, the
co%%ittee sub%itted the deed of sale together $ith the
supporting docu%ents to petitioner *ata for signingB on the
basis of the supporting certified docu%ents $hich appeared
regular and co%plete on their face, petitioner *ata, as head
of the office and the signing authorit' at that level, %erel'
signed but did not approve the deed of sale =E+hibit > as
the approval thereof $as the prerogative of the -ecretar' of
Public 3or(sB he thereafter trans%itted the signed deed of
sale $ith its supporting docu%ents to *irector Anolin of the
Bureau of Public 3or(s $ho in turn reco%%ended approval
thereof b' the -ecretar' of Public 3or(sB the deed of sale
$as approved b' the Asst. -ecretar' of Public 3or(s after
a revie$ and re"e+a%ination thereof at that levelB after the
approval of the deed of sale b' the higher authorities the
covering voucher for pa'%ent thereof $as prepared $hich
petitioner *ata signedB petitioner *ata did not (no$
utierre; and had never %et her during the processing and
pa'%ent of her clai%s =tsn, 0ebruar' @A, 45.9, pp. 4/"46,
4A"@6, :4":@>. =At pp. @A9"@A., Rollo.>
?n the alleged conspirac', the -olicitor eneral argues<
,t is respectfull' sub%itted that the prosecution li(e$ise has
not sho$n an' positive and convincing evidence of
conspirac' bet$een the petitioners and their co"accused.
There $as no direct finding of conspirac'. Respondent
Court)s inference on the alleged e+istence of conspirac'
%erel' upon the purported )pre"assigned roles =of the
accused> in the co%%ission of the =alleged> illegal acts in
#uestion is not supported b' an' evidence on record.
No$here in the sevent'" eight =9.> page *ecision $as
there an' specific allusion to so%e or even one instance
$hich $ould lin( either petitioner Arias or *ata to their co"
accused in the planning, preparation andIor perpetration, if
an', of the purported fraud and falsifications alleged in the
infor%ation That petitioners *ata and Arias happened to be
officials of the Pasig *istrict Engineering ?ffice $ho signed
the deed of sale and passed on pre"audit the general
voucher covering the sub&ect sale, respectivel', does hot
raise an' presu%ption or inference, that the' $ere part of
the alleged plan to defraud the overn%ent, as indeed
there $as none. ,t should be re%e%bered that, as
abovesho$n, there $as no undue in&ur' caused to the
overn%ent as the negotiated purchase of the Agleha%
propert' $as %ade at the fair and reasonable price of
P./.// per s#uare %eter.
That there $ere erasures and superi%positions of the
$ords and figures of the purchase price in the deed of sale
fro% P4,86A,@6/.// to P4,8@/,:@/.// does not prove
conspirac'. ,t %a' be noted that there $as a reduction in
the affected area fro% the esti%ated 45,:@. s#uare %eters
to 45,//6 s#uare %eters as approved b' the Cand
Registration Co%%ission, $hich resulted in the
corresponding reduction in the purchase price fro%
P4,86A,@6/.// to Pl,8@/,:@/.//. The erasures in the deed
of sale $ere si%ple corrections that even benefited the
overn%ent.
Moreover, contrar' to the respondent Court)s suspicion,
there $as nothing irregular in the use of the unapproved
surve' planItechnical description in the deed of sale
because the approval of the surve' planI technical
description $as not a prere#uisite to the approval of the
deed of sale. 3hat is i%portant is that before an' pa'%ent
is %ade b' the overn%ent under the deed of sale the title
of the seller %ust have alread' been cancelled and another
one issued to the overn%ent incorporating therein the
technical description as approved b' the Cand Registration
Co%%ission, as $hat obtained in the instant case. =At pp.
@9:"@98, Rollo>
3e agree $ith the counsel for the People. There is no ade#uate
evidence to establish the guilt of the petitioners, A%ado C. Arias and
Cresencio *. *ata, be'ond reasonable doubt. The inade#uate
evidence on record is not sufficient to sustain a conviction.
31ERE0?RE, the #uestioned decision of the -andiganba'an insofar
as it convicts and sentences petitioners A%ado C. Arias and
Cresencio *. *ata is hereb' -ET A-,*E. Petitioners Arias and *ata
are ac#uitted on grounds of reasonable doubt. No costs.
-? ?R*ERE*.
.ernan* /.0.* Narvasa* 1eencio2+errera* /ru-* Paras* Gancayco*
3idin* /ortes and 1ediadea* 00.* concur.
Se$%r%&e O$'('o()

GRI*O+A,UINO, J., dissenting<
The lone issue in these consolidated petitions for revie$ is $hether
the -andiganba'an co%%itted a reversible error in convicting the
petitioners, A%ado C. Arias and Cresencio *. *ata, of having violated
-ection :, paragraph =e>, of the Anti raft and Corrupt Practices Act,
in connection $ith the scandalous overpricing of land purchased b'
the overn%ent as right of $a' for its Mangahan 0lood$a' Pro&ect in
Pasig, Ri;al. The pertinent provision of the Anti"raft Ca$ reads as
follo$s<
-EC. :. Corrupt Practices of Public ?fficers",n addition to
acts or o%issions of public officers alread' penali;ed b'
e+isting la$. the follo$ing shall constitute corrupt practices
of an' public officer and are hereb' declared to be
unla$ful<
+ + + + + + + + +
=e> Causing an' undue in&ur' to an' part', including the
overn%ent, or giving an' private part' an' un$arranted
benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his
official ad%inistrative or &udicial functions through %anifest
partialit', evident bad faith or gross ine+cusable negligence.
This provision shall appl' to officers and e%plo'ees of
offices or govern%ent corporations charged $ith the grant
of licenses or per%its or other concessions.
The a%ended infor%ation against the%, to $hich the' pleaded not
guilt', alleged<
That on or about the period covering April, 459. to ?ctober
459., in Rosario, Pasig, Metro Manila, Philippines, and $ith
the &urisdiction of this 1onorable Court, accused /resencio
'. 'ata, being then the district Engineer of the province of
Ri;al, Ministr' of Public 3or(s, and as such, headed and
supervised the ac#uisition of private lands for the right"of"
$a' of the Mangahan 0lood$a' Pro&ect of the overn%ent
at -itio Mangahan, Rosario, Pasig, Metro ManilaB
accused Priscio G. .ernando, then the -upervising
Engineer of the ?ffice of the *istrict Engineer of Ri;al,
Ministr' of Public 3or(s $ho acted as assistant of accused
Cresencio *. *ata in the Mangahan 0lood$a' Pro&ectB
accusedLadisao G. /ru-, then the -enior Engineer of the
?ffice of the *istrict Engineer of Ri;al, Ministr' of Public
3or(s, $ho $as charged $ith the ac#uisition of lots
needed for the Mangahan 0lood$a' Pro&ectB
accused /aros L. 0ose then the ,nstru%ent%an of the
office of the *istrict Engineer of Ri;al, Ministr' of Public
3or(s $ho acted as the surve'or of the Mangahan
0lood$a' Pro&ectB accused/audio +. &rcaya, then the
Ad%inistrative ?fficer , of the Ri;al *istrict Engineer)s
?ffice, Ministr' of Public 3or(s $ho passed upon all
papers and docu%ents pertaining to private lands ac#uired
b' the overn%ent for the Mangahan 0lood$a' Pro&ectB
and accused &mado /. &rias, then the Auditor of Ri;al
Engineering *istrict, Pasig, Metro Manila, $ho passed
upon and approved in audit the ac#uisition as $ell as the
pa'%ent of lands needed for the Mangahan 0lood$a'
Pro&ect a ta,in$ advanta$e of their pubic and officia
positions* and conspirin$* confederatin$ and confabuatin$
with accused Natividad /. Gutierre-* the attorney2in2fact of
3enjamin &$eham* who is the re$istered owner of a parce
of and situated at 4osario* Pasi$* 1etro 1ania and
covered by Ori$ina /ertificate of Tite No. 0056* with
accused Ladisao G. /ru-* /aros L. 20ose and /audio
&rias* acting $ith evident bad faith, $hile accused
Cresencio *. *ata, Priscillo . 0ernando and A%ado C.
Arias, acting $ith %anifest partialit' in the discharge of their
official public andIor ad%inistrative functions, did then and
there $ilfull', unla$full' and feloniousl' cause undue in&ur',
da%age and pre&udice to the overn%ent of the Republic
of the Philippines b' causing, allo$ing andIor approving the
illegal and irregular disburse%ent and e+penditure of public
funds in favor of and in the na%e of Ben&a%in P. Agleha%
in the a%ount of P4,8@/,:@/.// under eneral Joucher
No. ."/69, supported b' a certification, dated -epte%ber
46, 459., $hich $as purportedl' issued b' the Municipal
Treasurer of Pasig, and certified +ero+ copies of Ta+
*eclarations Nos. 69.58 and A"/4."//54 4, both in the
na%e of Ben&a%in P. Agleha%, and an alleged o$ner)s
cop' of Ta+ *eclaration No. 6556., in the na%e of the
Republic of the Philippines, said supportin$ documents
havin$ been fasified by the accused to ma,e it appear that
the and mentioned in the above2stated supportin$ papers
is a residentia and with a mar,et vaue of P80.00 per
s#uare %eter and that 45,//6 s#uare %eters thereof $ere
transferred in the na%e of the overn%ent of the Republic
of the Philippines under Ta+ *eclaration No. 6556., $hen
in truth and in fact, the afore"stated land is actuall' a
riceland $ith a true and actual %ar(et value of P8.// per
s#uare %eter onl' and Ta+ *eclaration No. 6556. $as trul'
and officiall' registered in the na%es of spouses Moises
Javillonar and -ofia -an Andres, not in the na%e of the
overn%ent, and refers to a parcel of land at -agad,
Pasig, Metro ManilaB that the foregoing falsities $ere
co%%itted b' the accused to conceal the fact that the true
and actual pace of the 45,//6 s#uare %eters of land of
Ben&a%in P. Agleha%, $hich $as ac#uired in behalf of the
overn%ent b' $a' of negotiated purchase b' the accused
officials herein for the right of $a' of the Mangahan
0lood$a' pro&ect at an overprice of P4,8@/,:@/.// $as
P5@,/@/.// onl'B and finall', upon receipt of the overpriced
a%ount, the accused %isappropriated, converted and
%isapplied the e+cess of the true and actual value of the
above"%entioned land, i.e., P4,6@.,://.// for their o$n
personal needs, uses and benefits, to the da%age and
pre&udice of the overn%ent in the a%ount of
P4,6@.,://.//. =pp. @5:4, Rollo of .R. No. .48A:.>
Priscillo 0ernando did not face trial for he has re%ained at large, his
present $hereabouts being un(no$n =p. 6., -andiganba'an *ecision,
p. 98, Rollo of .R. No. .48A:>.
,n 4598, the Bureau of Public 3or(s initiated the Mangahan 0lood$a'
Pro&ect to ease the perennial floods affecting the to$ns of Mari(ina
and Pasig, Metro Manila. The pro&ect $ould traverse the northern and
southern portions of ?rtigas Avenue in Pasig, Metro Manila =E+hibits A
and A"4>. An announce%ent $as published in leading ne$spapers
advising affected propert' o$ners to file their applications for pa'%ent
at the *istrict Engineer)s ?ffice =p. @5, -andiganba'an *ecision, p.
8A, !bid.>.
The i%ple%entation of the Mangahan 0lood$a' Pro&ect $as entrusted
to the Pasig Engineering *istrict headed b' the *istrict Engineer,
Cresencio *ata. 1e for%ed a co%%ittee co%posed of -upervising
Civil Engineer Priscillo 0ernando, as over"all in charge, Alfonso
Mendo;a and Pedro 1uco% for ac#uisition of i%prove%ents, and
,nstru%ent%an Carlos Jose for surve's =p. @A, -andiganba'an
*ecision, p. 8:, !bid.>. The tea% $as tas(ed to notif' lot o$ners
affected b' the pro&ect of the i%pending e+propriation of their
properties and to receive and process applications for pa'%ent.
The reclassification of all lands around the Mangahan 0lood$a'
Pro&ect $as suspended in 4598 b' order of the President =p. 68,
-andiganba'an *ecision, p. 9@, !bid.>. ,%ple%enting that order, a
%e%orandu% $as sent to *ata on August @9,459A, b' Public 3or(s
*irector *esiderio Anolin, directing that all affected lands covered b'
the Mangahan 0lood$a' Pro&ect shall be e+cluded fro% reevaluation
and reassess%ent =Anne+ A, E+h. **, Counter"Affidavit of *ata, p.
9/, -andiganba'an *ecision, P. 59, !bid>.
A%ong the lots affected $as a 45,//6"s#uare"%eter portion of a
:/,4A5"s#uare"%eter riceland in Pasig registered in the na%e of
Ben&a%in Agleha% under ?riginal Certificate of Title No. //59 issued
on Ma' 8, 4599 =E+h. 1>. The land $as previousl' o$ned b' Andrea
Arabit and Evaristo utierre;, parents of the accused Natividad
utierre;.
After Agleha% ac#uired the :"hectare land in 459: fro% the utierre;
spouses, he had it subdivided into three =:> lots under plan =CRC>
Psd"@9.68A $hich $as approved b' the Cand Registration
Co%%ission on June 4, 459. =Entr' No. @9:55I4@/94, E+h. 1>. Cot 4,
$ith an area of 45,//6 s#uare %eters, is the portion that Agleha%,
through Natividad utierre;, sold to the overn%ent in 459. for the
Mangahan 0lood$a' Pro&ect.
?n *ece%ber 48, 459:, Agleha%)s propert', classified as a 7ricefield7
$ith an area of :.@ hectares, $as declared for ta+ation under Ta+
*eclaration No. @.@6A =E+h"G>. ,ts assessed value $as P6,.// or
P/.48 per s#uare %eter =p. 4/, -andiganba'an *ecision, p. :9, ,bid.>.
?n 0ebruar' @9, 459., another Ta+ *eclaration No. 69.58 =E+h. G"4>
$as issued for the sa%e ricefield7 $ith a revised area of :/,4A5
s#uare %eters. The declared %ar(et value $as P48/,.8/ =or P8 per
s#uare %eter>, and the assessed value $as PA/,:6/.
Ten %onths later, or on *ece%ber 48, 459., Ta+ *eclaration No.
69.58 $as cancelled and replaced b' Ta+ *eclaration No. A/4."
//544 =E+h. G"@> $herein the %ar(et value of the sa%e 7ricefield,7
&u%ped to P:/4,A5/ =P4/ per s#uare %eter>. ,ts assessed value $as
fi+ed at P4@/,A./. The description and value of the propert',
according to Pedro ?col, the assistant Municipal Assessor of Pasig,
$as based on the actual use of the propert' =riceland> not on its
potential use =p. 4:, -andiganba'an *ecision, p. 6/, !bid.>. The
valuation $as based on a co%pilation of sales given to the Municipal
Assessor)s office b' the Register of *eeds, fro% $hich transactions
the Assessor obtained the average valuation of the properties in the
sa%e vicinit' =p. 46, -andiganba'an *ecision, p. 64, !bid.>.
A%ong those $ho filed an application for pa'%ent =E+hs. 00 and 00"
4> at the *istrict Engineer)s ?ffice $as the accused, Natividad
utierre;, $ho $as ar%ed $ith a -pecial Po$er of Attorne' allegedl'
e+ecuted on 0ebruar' @6,459. b' Ben&a%in Agleha% in her favor
=E+hs. C and C"4>. -he sub%itted a falsified +ero+ cop' of Ta+
*eclaration No. 69.58 =E+h. B> bearing a false date< *ece%ber
48,459: =instead of 0ebruar' @9, 459.> and describing Agleha%)s
:/,4A5"s#uare"%eter propert' as 7residential7 =instead of riceland>,
$ith a fair %ar(et value of P@,64:,8@/ or P./ per s#uare %eter
=instead of P48/,.68 at P8 per s#uare %eter>. ,ts assessed value
appeared to be P9@6,/8A =instead of PA/,:6/>. utierre; sub%itted
Agleha%)s ?riginal Certificate of Title No. //59 =E+h. 1"4>, the
technical description of the propert', and a +ero+ cop' of a 7-$orn
-tate%ent of the True Current and 0air Mar(et Jalue of Real Propert'7
re#uired under P.*. No. 9A =E+h. 4>. The +ero+ cop' of Ta+
*eclaration No. 69.58 $as supposedl' certified b' the Municipal
Treasurer of Pasig, Alfredo Prudencio.
The docu%ents supporting Agleha%)s clai% $ere 7e+a%ined7 b' the
Ad%inistrative ?fficer, accused Claudio Arca'a, $ho, after initiating
the%, turned the% over to accused Cadislao . Cru;, A *eed of
Absolute -ale for Cot 4 =45,//6 s#uare %eters valued at P./ per
s#uare %eter> $as prepared b' Cru; $ho also initialed the supporting
docu%ents and trans%itted the% to *istrict Engr. *ata.
?n April @/,459., the *eed of Absolute -ale =E+hs. and "4> $as
signed b' *ata and utierre; =as attorne'"in"fact of Agleha%>.
Thereafter, *ata sent the papers to *irector *esiderio Anolin of the
Bureau of Public 3or(s $ho reco%%ended to the Assistant -ecretar'
of Public 3or(s the approval of the *eed of -ale =E+h. "4>.
After$ards, the docu%ents $ere returned to *ata)s office for the
transfer of title to the overn%ent. ?n June ., 459., the sale $as
registered and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T"4@/94 =E+h. T> $as
issued in the na%e of the overn%ent.
eneral Joucher =E+h. -> No. .8"@"9./5"8@ dated 75I@5I9.7 for the
a%ount of P4,8@/,:@/ bore fourth certifications of. =4> Cru; as -enior
Civil EngineerB =@> Priscillo . 0ernando as -upervising Civil Engineer
,,B =:> Cresencio *ata as *istrict Engineer ,, and =6> Cesar J. 0ranco
as Pro&ect Acting Accountant =p. 8A, -andiganba'an *ecision, p. .:,
,bid.>.
?n ?ctober @:, 459., the voucher and its supporting docu%ents $ere
pre"audited and approved for pa'%ent b' the accused, A%ado C.
Arias, as auditor of the Engineering *istrict. The ne+t da', ?ctober @6,
459., si+teen =4A> PNB chec(s $ith -erial Nos. 4..8:@ to 4..869,
inclusive =E+hs. K to K"4 8>, for the total su% of Pl,8@/,:@/.// $ere
issued to utierre; as pa'%ent for Agleha%)s 45,//6"s#uare"%eter
lot.
,n ?ctober, 4595, an investigation $as conducted b' the Ministr' of
National *efense on the gross overpricing of Agleha%)s propert'.
*uring the investigation, s$orn state%ents $ere ta(en fro% Alfredo
Prudencio, Municipal Treasurer of Pasig =E+h. AA>, Pedro ?col,
Assistant Municipal Assessor of Pasig =E+h. BB>, and the accused
Claudio Arca'a =E+h. EE>. Prudencio denied having issued or signed
the certification dated -epte%ber 46,459. =E+h. J>, attesting that
Agleha%)s propert' covered b' Ta+ *eclaration No. 69.58 had a
%ar(et value of P@,64:,8@/ and that the ta+es had been paid fro%
4598 to 459.. Prudencio also i%pugned the initial =purporting to be
that of his subordinate Ruben atchalian, Chief of the Cand Ta+
*ivision> that $as affi+ed belo$ Prudencio)s t'pe$ritten na%e in
E+hibit J. Both Prudencio and atchalian diso$ned the t'pe$ritten
certification. The' declared that such certifications are usuall' issued
b' their office on %i%eographed for%s =E+h. J"4>.
Assistant Municipal Assessor Pedro ?col produced and ,dentified the
original or genuine Ta+ *eclaration No. 69.58 dated 0ebruar' @9,
459., and a certified cop' thereof =E+h. G"4>. Therein, Agleha%)s
propert' of :/,4A5 s#uare %eters $as classified as a 7ricefield7 and
appraised at P8 per s#uare %eter, $ith an assessed value of PA/,:6/
and a %ar(et value of P, 8/,.8/. ?col testified that the supposed
+ero+ cop' of Ta+ *eclaration No. 69.58 =E+h. B>, $hich utierre;
sub%itted as one of the supporting docu%ents of the general voucher
=E+h. ->, $as fa(e, because of the follo$ing tell"tale signs<
=4> the ta+ declaration nu%ber $as t'pe$ritten, not %achine
nu%bered as in the genuine ta+ declaration, E+hibit GB
=@> the sta%p%ar( of registration $as antedated to *ece%ber 48,
459: in the fa(e, instead of the correct date 0ebruar' @9, 459."" in the
genuine ta+ declarationB
=:> the classification of the propert' $as 7residential,7 instead of
7ricefield7 $hich is its classification in the genuine docu%entB and
=6> the lot $as over priced at P./ per s#uare %eter in the fa(e ta+
declaration, instead of the appraised value of onl' P8 per s#uare
%eter appearing in the genuine declaration.
Also found to be fa(e $as Ta+ *eclaration No. 6556. in the na%e of
the Republic of the Philippines =E+hs. L and L"4>. The genuine Ta+
*eclaration No. 6556. =E+hs. 2 and J"@> $as actuall' filed on ?ctober
4., 459. in the na%es of the spouses Moises Javillonar and -ofia
Andres, for their 85."s#uare"%eters) residential propert' $ith a
declared %ar(et value of P84,A:/.
The Agleha% deed of sale $as pre"audited b' the auditor of the Ri;al
Engineering *istrict, A%ado Arias, $ho approved the pa'%ent of
Pl,8@/,:@/ to utierre; $ithout #uestioning the fact that the a%ount of
the purchase price therein had been altered, i.e., 7sno$"fla(ed =sic>
and later superi%posed b' the a%ount of P4,8@/,:@/ in $ords and
figures7 =p. 94, -andiganba'an *ecision, p. 5., !bid.>, nor chec(ing
the veracit' of the supporting docu%ents listed at the bac( of the
eneral Joucher =E+h. ->, nu%bering fifteen =48> in all, a%ong $hich
$ere<
=4> the fa(e Ta+ *eclaration No. 69.58 sho$ing that the value of the
land $as P./ per s#uare %eter =E+h. B>B
=@> fa(e Ta+ *eclaration No. 6556. ,n the na%e of the Republic of the
Philippines =E+h. L>
=:> the forged certification of Municipal Treasurer Prudencio that the
fair %ar(et value of )the land $as P4// per s#uare %eter =E+h. J>B
=6> a false certification =E+h. *> dated -epte%ber 45, 459. signed b'
accused Cru;, Jose, and 0ernando, certif'ing that the Agleha%
propert' $as upon ocular inspection b' the%, found to be
7residentialB7
=8> a falsel' dated certification $here the original date $as erased and
a false date =0ebruar' 48, 459.> $as superi%posed =E+h.E>, issued
b' Engr. 0ernando pursuant to *P3TC Circular No. 889, certif'ing
that he had e+a%ined the real estate ta+ receipts of the Agleha%
propert' for the last three =:> 'earsB
=A> the technical description of the land =E+hs. 0 and 0"4> attached to
the deed of sale dated April @/, 459. $as not an approved technical
description for the subdivision surve' e+ecuted b' eodetic Engineer
Cipriano C. Caro $as verified and approved b' the Cand Registration
Co%%ission on Ma' @.,459. onl'. There $ere 7substantial variations7
noted b' the -andiganba'an bet$een the approved technical
description and the technical description of the land in the deed of sale
=p. A4, -andiganba'an *ecision, p. .., !bid.>B
=9> the special po$er of attorne' dated 0ebruar' @6, 459., supposedl'
given to utierre; b' Agleha% =E+hs. C, C"4> bore a fictitious
residence certificate Agleha% =p. A6, -andiganba'an *ecision, p.
54, !bid.>B and
=.> the fa(e -$orn -tate%ent on the Current and 0air Mar(et Jalue of
Real Properties =E+h. M> dated ?ctober 4, 459:, contained a forged
signature of Agleha%, presu%abl' %ade b' utierre; herself The
-andiganba'an observed that Agleha%)s supposed signature
7appears to be identical to accused utierre;) signatures in the
eneral Joucher =E+h. ->, in the release and Huitclai% $hich she
signed in favor of Agleha% on Jul' @/, 45.: =E+h. CC>, and in her
affidavits =E+hs. 00 and 00"4>.7 =pp. A6"A8, -andiganba'an *ecision,
pp. 54"5@, !bid.>.
After pa'%ent of the Agleha% clai%, all the supporting docu%ents
$ere (ept b' Arias. Even after he had been replaced b' Julito
Pesa'co on -epte%ber 4, 45.4, as auditor of the Ri;al Engineering
*istrict, he did not turn over the docu%ents to Pesa'co. ,t $as onl' on
June @:, 45.@, after this case had been filed in the -andiganba'an
and the trial had begun, that Arias delivered the% to Pesa'co =E+h. T"
4>.
After a trial lasting nearl' si+ 'ears, the -andiganba'an rendered a
9."page decision on Nove%ber 4A, 45.9, $hose dispositive portion
reads as follo$s<
31ERE0?RE, &udg%ent is hereb' rendered finding
accused Natividad . utierre;, Cresencio *. *ata,
Cadislao . Cru;, Carlos C. Jose, Claudio 1. Arca'a and
A%ado C. Arias 2,CTG be'ond reasonable doubt of the
violation of -ection :, paragraph =e> of Republic Act No.
:/45, as ascended, other$ise (no$n as the Anti"raft and
Corrupt Practices Act, and hereb' sentences each of the%
to suffer the penalt' of i%prison%ent for T1REE =:>
GEAR-, as %ini%u% to -,K =A> GEAR-, as %a+i%u%B to
further suffer perpetual dis#ualification fro% public officeB to
inde%nif' &ointl' and severall', the overn%ent of the
Republic of the Philippines in the a%ount of P4,6@8,://,
and to pa' their proportional costs of this action. =p. 4/6,
Rollo of .R. No. .48A:.>
Both Arias and *ata appealed.
Arias anchors his petition for revie$ of the -andiganba'an)s decision
=.R. No. .48A:> on his contention that the court)s findings that he
conspired $ith his co"accused and that he $as grossl' negligent are
based on %isapprehension of facts, speculation, sur%ise, and
con&ecture.
*ata)s %ain defense is that the ac#uisition of the Agleha% propert'
$as the $or( of the co%%ittee of Prescillo 0ernando iii $hich he did
not ta(e an active part, and that the price $hich the govern%ent paid
for it $as reasonable. 1ence, it uttered no &ur' in the transaction.
,n his consolidated brief or co%%ent for the -tate, the -olicitor
eneral reco%%ends the ac#uittal of the petitioners because the
Agleha% propert' $as allegedl' not grossl' overpriced.
After deliberating on the petitions in these cases, $e find no error in
the decision under revie$. The -andiganba'an did not err in finding
that the petitioners conspired $ith their co"accused to cause in&ur' to
the overn%ent and to undul' favor the lot o$ner, Agleha%.
A conspirac' need not be proved b' direct evidence of the acts
charged, but %a' and generall' %ust be proven b' a nu%ber of
indefinite acts, conditions and circu%stances =People vs. Maralit, .R.
No. 9446:, -ept. 45,45..B People vs. Roca, .R. No. 99995, June @9,
45..>.
This case presents a conspirac' of silence and inaction $here chiefs
of office $ho should have been vigilant to protect the interest of the
overn%ent in the purchase of Agleha%)s t$o"hectare riceland,
accepted as gospel truth the certifications of their subordinates, and
approved $ithout #uestion the %illion"peso purchase $hich, b' the
standards prevailing in 459A"9., should have pric(ed their curiosit'
and pro%pted the% to %a(e in#uiries and to verif' the authenticit' of
the docu%ents presented to the% for approval. The petitioners (ept
silent $hen the' should have as(ed #uestions the' loo(ed the other
$a' $hen the' should have probed deep into the transaction.
-ince it $as too %uch of a coincidence that both petitioners $ere
negligent at the sa%e ti%e over the sa%e transaction, the
-andiganba'an $as &ustified in concluding that the' connived and
conspired to act in that %anner to approve the illegal transaction
$hich $ould favor the seller of the land and defraud the overn%ent.
3e cannot accept Arias) e+cuse that because the deed of sale had
been signed and the propert' transferred to the overn%ent $hich
received a title in its na%e, there $as nothing else for hi% to do but
approve the voucher for pa'%ent. The pri%ar' function of an auditor is
to prevent irregular, unnecessar', e+cessive or e+travagant
e+penditures of govern%ent funds.
The auditorial function of an auditor, as a representative of the
Co%%ission on Audit, co%prises three aspects< =4> e+a%inationB =@>
audit< and =:> settle%ent of the accounts, funds, financial transactions
and resources of the agencies under their respective audit &urisdiction
=-ec. 6:, overn%ent Auditing Code of the Phil.>. E+a%ination, as
applied to auditing, %eans 7to probe records, or inspect securities or
other docu%entsB revie$ procedures, and #uestion persons, all for the
purpose of arriving at an opinion of accurac', propriet', sufficienc',
and the li(e.7 =-tate Audit Code of the Philippines, Annotated b'
Tantuico, 45.@ Ed., p. 89.>
Arias ad%itted that he did not chec( or verif' the papers supporting
the general voucher that $as sub%itted to hi% for pa'%ent of
Pl,8@/,:@/ to Agleha% or his attorne'"in"fact, Natividad utierre;.
Arias did not #uestion an' person for the purpose of deter%ining the
accurac' and integrit' of the docu%ents sub%itted to hi% and the
reasonableness of the price that the overn%ent $as pa'ing for the
less than t$o"hectare riceland. 3e re&ect his casuistic e+planation that
since his subordinates had passed upon the transaction, he could
assu%e that it $as la$ful and regular for, if he $ould be a %ere rubber
sta%p for his subordinates, his position as auditor $ould be useless
and unnecessar'.
3e %a(e the sa%e observation concerning *istrict Engineer
Cresencio *ata $ho clai%s innocence because he allegedl' did not
ta(e an' direct and active participation in the ac#uisition of the
Agleha% propert', thro$ing the bla%e on the co%%ittee $hich he
created, co%posed of 0ernando, Asuncion, Mendo;a, Cru;, 1uco%
and Jose that negotiated $ith the propert' o$ners for the purchase of
properties on the path of the Mangahan 0lood$a' Pro&ect. 1e in effect
$ould hide under the s(irt of the co%%ittee $hich he hi%self selected
and to $hich he delegated the tas( that $as assigned to his office to
identif' the lots that $ould be traversed b' the flood$a' pro&ect,
gather and verif' docu%ents, %a(e surve's, negotiate $ith the
o$ners for the price, prepare the deeds of sale, and process clai%s
for pa'%ent. B' appointing the co%%ittee, he did not cease to be
responsible for the i%ple%entation of the pro&ect. 2nder the principle
of co%%and responsibilit', he $as responsible for the %anner in
$hich the co%%ittee perfor%ed its tas(s for it $as he $ho in fact
signed the deed of sale prepared b' the co%%ittee. B' signing the
deed of sale and certifications prepared for his signature b' his
co%%ittee, he in effect, %ade their acts his o$n. 1e is, therefore,
e#uall' guilt' $ith those %e%bers of the co%%ittee =0ernando, Cru;
and Jose> $ho accepted the fa(e ta+ declarations and %ade false
certifications regarding the use and value of the Agleha% propert'.
The -olicitor eneral has pointed out that *ata signed, but did not
approve, the deed of sale of Agleha%)s propert' because the approval
thereof $as the prerogative of the -ecretar' of Public 3or(s. ,t should
not be overloo(ed, ho$ever, that *ata)s signature on the deed of sale
$as e#uivalent to an attestation that the transaction $as fair, honest
and legal. ,t $as he $ho $as charged $ith the tas( of i%ple%enting
the Mangahan 0lood$a' Pro&ect $ithin his engineering district.
3e find no %erit in the -olicitor eneral)s argu%ent that the Agleha%
riceland $as not overpriced because the price of P./ per s#uare
%eter fi+ed in the deed of sale $as reasonable, hence, the petitioners
are not guilt' of having caused undue in&ur' and pre&udice to the
overn%ent, nor of having given un$arranted benefits to the propert'
o$ner andIor his attorne'"in"fact, utierre;. 1e further argues that the
valuation in the o$ner)s genuine ta+ declaration %a' not be used as a
standard in deter%ining the fair %ar(et value of the propert' because
P* Nos. 9A and 6A6 =%a(ing it %andator' in e+propriation cases to fi+
the price at the value of the propert' as declared b' the o$ner, or as
deter%ined b' the assessor, $hichever is lo$er>, $ere declared null
and void b' this Court in the case of "#port Processin$ %one
&uthority 7"P%&8 vs. 'uay, 465 -CRA :/8, and other related cases.
That argu%ent is not $ell ta(en because P* Nos. 9A and 6A6 =before
the' $ere nullified> applied to the e+propriation of propert' for public
use. The ac#uisition of Agleha%)s riceland $as not done b'
e+propriation but through a negotiated sale. ,n the course of the
negotiations, there $as absolutel' no ae$ation nor proof that the
price of P./ per s#uare %eter $as its fair %ar(et value in 459., i.e.,
eleven =44> 'ears ago. 3hat the accused did $as to prove the value of
the land through fa(e ta+ declarations =E+hs. B, 0, L>, false
certifications =E+hs. J, * and E> and a forged s$orn state%ent on the
current and fair %ar(et value of the real propert' =E+h. M> sub%itted b'
the accused in support of the deed of sale. Because fraudulent
docu%ents $ere used, it %a' not be said that the -tate agreed to pa'
the price on the basis of its fairness, for the overn%ent $as in fact
deceived concerning the reasonable value of the land.
3hen ?col testified in 958: that P./ $as a reasonable valuation for
the Agleha%)s land, he did not clarif' that $as also its reasonable
value in 4598, before real estate values in Pasig soared as a result of
the i%ple%entation of the Mangahan 0lood$a' Pro&ect. 1ence, ?col)s
testi%on' $as insufficient to rebut the valuation in Agleha%)s genuine
459. Ta+ *eclaration No. 69.58 that the fair valuation of the riceland
then $as onl' P8 per s#uare %eter. A Ta+ *eclaration is a guide or
indicator of the reasonable value of the propert' =EPMA vs.
*ula', supra>.
The petitioner)s partialit' for Agleha%Iutierre; %a' be inferred fro%
their having deliberatel' closed their e'es to the defects and
irregularities of the transaction in his favor and their see%ing neglect,
if not deliberate o%ission, to chec(, the authenticit' of the docu%ents
presented to the% for approval. -ince partialit' is a %ental state or
predilection, in the absence of direct evidence, it %a' be proved b'
the attendant circu%stance instances.
31ERE0?RE, , vote to affir% in toto the decision of the
-andiganba'an in -B Cri%. Case No. @/4/, $ith costs against the
petitioners, A%ado Arias and Cresencio *ata.
.eiciano* Padia* ;armiento* and 4e$aado* 00.* concur.

Se$%r%&e O$'('o()
GRI*O+A,UINO, J., dissenting<
The lone issue in these consolidated petitions for revie$ is $hether
the -andiganba'an co%%itted a reversible error in convicting the
petitioners, A%ado C. Arias and Cresencio *. *ata, of having violated
-ection :, paragraph =e>, of the Anti raft and Corrupt Practices Act,
in connection $ith the scandalous overpricing of land purchased b'
the overn%ent as right of $a' for its Mangahan 0lood$a' Pro&ect in
Pasig, Ri;al. The pertinent provision of the Anti"raft Ca$ reads as
follo$s<
-EC. :. Corrupt Practices of Public ?fficers",n addition to
acts or o%issions of public officers alread' penali;ed b'
e+isting la$. the follo$ing shall constitute corrupt practices
of an' public officer and are hereb' declared to be
unla$ful<
+ + + + + + + + +
=e> Causing an' undue in&ur' to an' part', including the
overn%ent, or giving an' private part' an' un$arranted
benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his
official ad%inistrative or &udicial functions through %anifest
partialit', evident bad faith or gross ine+cusable negligence.
This provision shall appl' to officers and e%plo'ees of
offices or govern%ent corporations charged $ith the grant
of licenses or per%its or other concessions.
The a%ended infor%ation against the%, to $hich the' pleaded not
guilt', alleged<
That on or about the period covering April, 459. to ?ctober
459., in Rosario, Pasig, Metro Manila, Philippines, and $ith
the &urisdiction of this 1onorable Court, accused /resencio
'. 'ata, being then the district Engineer of the province of
Ri;al, Ministr' of Public 3or(s, and as such, headed and
supervised the ac#uisition of private lands for the right"of"
$a' of the Mangahan 0lood$a' Pro&ect of the overn%ent
at -itio Mangahan, Rosario, Pasig, Metro ManilaB
accused Priscio G. .ernando, then the -upervising
Engineer of the ?ffice of the *istrict Engineer of Ri;al,
Ministr' of Public 3or(s $ho acted as assistant of accused
Cresencio *. *ata in the Mangahan 0lood$a' Pro&ectB
accusedLadisao G. /ru-, then the -enior Engineer of the
?ffice of the *istrict Engineer of Ri;al, Ministr' of Public
3or(s, $ho $as charged $ith the ac#uisition of lots
needed for the Mangahan 0lood$a' Pro&ectB
accused /aros L. 0ose then the ,nstru%ent%an of the
office of the *istrict Engineer of Ri;al, Ministr' of Public
3or(s $ho acted as the surve'or of the Mangahan
0lood$a' Pro&ectB accused/audio +. &rcaya, then the
Ad%inistrative ?fficer , of the Ri;al *istrict Engineer)s
?ffice, Ministr' of Public 3or(s $ho passed upon all
papers and docu%ents pertaining to private lands ac#uired
b' the overn%ent for the Mangahan 0lood$a' Pro&ectB
and accused &mado /. &rias, then the Auditor of Ri;al
Engineering *istrict, Pasig, Metro Manila, $ho passed
upon and approved in audit the ac#uisition as $ell as the
pa'%ent of lands needed for the Mangahan 0lood$a'
Pro&ect a ta,in$ advanta$e of their pubic and officia
positions* and conspirin$* confederatin$ and confabuatin$
with accused Natividad /. Gutierre-* the attorney2in2fact of
3enjamin &$eham* who is the re$istered owner of a parce
of and situated at 4osario* Pasi$* 1etro 1ania and
covered by Ori$ina /ertificate of Tite No. 0056* with
accused Ladisao G. /ru-* /aros L. 20ose and /audio
&rias* acting $ith evident bad faith, $hile accused
Cresencio *. *ata, Priscillo . 0ernando and A%ado C.
Arias, acting $ith %anifest partialit' in the discharge of their
official public andIor ad%inistrative functions, did then and
there $ilfull', unla$full' and feloniousl' cause undue in&ur',
da%age and pre&udice to the overn%ent of the Republic
of the Philippines b' causing, allo$ing andIor approving the
illegal and irregular disburse%ent and e+penditure of public
funds in favor of and in the na%e of Ben&a%in P. Agleha%
in the a%ount of P4,8@/,:@/.// under eneral Joucher
No. ."/69, supported b' a certification, dated -epte%ber
46, 459., $hich $as purportedl' issued b' the Municipal
Treasurer of Pasig, and certified +ero+ copies of Ta+
*eclarations Nos. 69.58 and A"/4."//54 4, both in the
na%e of Ben&a%in P. Agleha%, and an alleged o$ner)s
cop' of Ta+ *eclaration No. 6556., in the na%e of the
Republic of the Philippines, said supportin$ documents
havin$ been fasified by the accused to ma,e it appear that
the and mentioned in the above2stated supportin$ papers
is a residentia and with a mar,et vaue of P80.00 per
s#uare %eter and that 45,//6 s#uare %eters thereof $ere
transferred in the na%e of the overn%ent of the Republic
of the Philippines under Ta+ *eclaration No. 6556., $hen
in truth and in fact, the afore"stated land is actuall' a
riceland $ith a true and actual %ar(et value of P8.// per
s#uare %eter onl' and Ta+ *eclaration No. 6556. $as trul'
and officiall' registered in the na%es of spouses Moises
Javillonar and -ofia -an Andres, not in the na%e of the
overn%ent, and refers to a parcel of land at -agad,
Pasig, Metro ManilaB that the foregoing falsities $ere
co%%itted b' the accused to conceal the fact that the true
and actual pace of the 45,//6 s#uare %eters of land of
Ben&a%in P. Agleha%, $hich $as ac#uired in behalf of the
overn%ent b' $a' of negotiated purchase b' the accused
officials herein for the right of $a' of the Mangahan
0lood$a' pro&ect at an overprice of P4,8@/,:@/.// $as
P5@,/@/.// onl'B and finall', upon receipt of the overpriced
a%ount, the accused %isappropriated, converted and
%isapplied the e+cess of the true and actual value of the
above"%entioned land, i.e., P4,6@.,://.// for their o$n
personal needs, uses and benefits, to the da%age and
pre&udice of the overn%ent in the a%ount of
P4,6@.,://.//. =pp. @5:4, Rollo of .R. No. .48A:.>
Priscillo 0ernando did not face trial for he has re%ained at large, his
present $hereabouts being un(no$n =p. 6., -andiganba'an *ecision,
p. 98, Rollo of .R. No. .48A:>.
,n 4598, the Bureau of Public 3or(s initiated the Mangahan 0lood$a'
Pro&ect to ease the perennial floods affecting the to$ns of Mari(ina
and Pasig, Metro Manila. The pro&ect $ould traverse the northern and
southern portions of ?rtigas Avenue in Pasig, Metro Manila =E+hibits A
and A"4>. An announce%ent $as published in leading ne$spapers
advising affected propert' o$ners to file their applications for pa'%ent
at the *istrict Engineer)s ?ffice =p. @5, -andiganba'an *ecision, p.
8A, !bid.>.
The i%ple%entation of the Mangahan 0lood$a' Pro&ect $as entrusted
to the Pasig Engineering *istrict headed b' the *istrict Engineer,
Cresencio *ata. 1e for%ed a co%%ittee co%posed of -upervising
Civil Engineer Priscillo 0ernando, as over"all in charge, Alfonso
Mendo;a and Pedro 1uco% for ac#uisition of i%prove%ents, and
,nstru%ent%an Carlos Jose for surve's =p. @A, -andiganba'an
*ecision, p. 8:, !bid.>. The tea% $as tas(ed to notif' lot o$ners
affected b' the pro&ect of the i%pending e+propriation of their
properties and to receive and process applications for pa'%ent.
The reclassification of all lands around the Mangahan 0lood$a'
Pro&ect $as suspended in 4598 b' order of the President =p. 68,
-andiganba'an *ecision, p. 9@, !bid.>. ,%ple%enting that order, a
%e%orandu% $as sent to *ata on August @9,459A, b' Public 3or(s
*irector *esiderio Anolin, directing that all affected lands covered b'
the Mangahan 0lood$a' Pro&ect shall be e+cluded fro% reevaluation
and reassess%ent =Anne+ A, E+h. **, Counter"Affidavit of *ata, p.
9/, -andiganba'an *ecision, P. 59, !bid>.
A%ong the lots affected $as a 45,//6"s#uare"%eter portion of a
:/,4A5"s#uare"%eter riceland in Pasig registered in the na%e of
Ben&a%in Agleha% under ?riginal Certificate of Title No. //59 issued
on Ma' 8, 4599 =E+h. 1>. The land $as previousl' o$ned b' Andrea
Arabit and Evaristo utierre;, parents of the accused Natividad
utierre;.
After Agleha% ac#uired the :"hectare land in 459: fro% the utierre;
spouses, he had it subdivided into three =:> lots under plan =CRC>
Psd"@9.68A $hich $as approved b' the Cand Registration
Co%%ission on June 4, 459. =Entr' No. @9:55I4@/94, E+h. 1>. Cot 4,
$ith an area of 45,//6 s#uare %eters, is the portion that Agleha%,
through Natividad utierre;, sold to the overn%ent in 459. for the
Mangahan 0lood$a' Pro&ect.
?n *ece%ber 48, 459:, Agleha%)s propert', classified as a 7ricefield7
$ith an area of :.@ hectares, $as declared for ta+ation under Ta+
*eclaration No. @.@6A =E+h"G>. ,ts assessed value $as P6,.// or
P/.48 per s#uare %eter =p. 4/, -andiganba'an *ecision, p. :9, ,bid.>.
?n 0ebruar' @9, 459., another Ta+ *eclaration No. 69.58 =E+h. G"4>
$as issued for the sa%e ricefield7 $ith a revised area of :/,4A5
s#uare %eters. The declared %ar(et value $as P48/,.8/ =or P8 per
s#uare %eter>, and the assessed value $as PA/,:6/.
Ten %onths later, or on *ece%ber 48, 459., Ta+ *eclaration No.
69.58 $as cancelled and replaced b' Ta+ *eclaration No. A/4."
//544 =E+h. G"@> $herein the %ar(et value of the sa%e 7ricefield,7
&u%ped to P:/4,A5/ =P4/ per s#uare %eter>. ,ts assessed value $as
fi+ed at P4@/,A./. The description and value of the propert',
according to Pedro ?col, the assistant Municipal Assessor of Pasig,
$as based on the actual use of the propert' =riceland> not on its
potential use =p. 4:, -andiganba'an *ecision, p. 6/, !bid.>. The
valuation $as based on a co%pilation of sales given to the Municipal
Assessor)s office b' the Register of *eeds, fro% $hich transactions
the Assessor obtained the average valuation of the properties in the
sa%e vicinit' =p. 46, -andiganba'an *ecision, p. 64, !bid.>.
A%ong those $ho filed an application for pa'%ent =E+hs. 00 and 00"
4> at the *istrict Engineer)s ?ffice $as the accused, Natividad
utierre;, $ho $as ar%ed $ith a -pecial Po$er of Attorne' allegedl'
e+ecuted on 0ebruar' @6,459. b' Ben&a%in Agleha% in her favor
=E+hs. C and C"4>. -he sub%itted a falsified +ero+ cop' of Ta+
*eclaration No. 69.58 =E+h. B> bearing a false date< *ece%ber
48,459: =instead of 0ebruar' @9, 459.> and describing Agleha%)s
:/,4A5"s#uare"%eter propert' as 7residential7 =instead of riceland>,
$ith a fair %ar(et value of P@,64:,8@/ or P./ per s#uare %eter
=instead of P48/,.68 at P8 per s#uare %eter>. ,ts assessed value
appeared to be P9@6,/8A =instead of PA/,:6/>. utierre; sub%itted
Agleha%)s ?riginal Certificate of Title No. //59 =E+h. 1"4>, the
technical description of the propert', and a +ero+ cop' of a 7-$orn
-tate%ent of the True Current and 0air Mar(et Jalue of Real Propert'7
re#uired under P.*. No. 9A =E+h. 4>. The +ero+ cop' of Ta+
*eclaration No. 69.58 $as supposedl' certified b' the Municipal
Treasurer of Pasig, Alfredo Prudencio.
The docu%ents supporting Agleha%)s clai% $ere 7e+a%ined7 b' the
Ad%inistrative ?fficer, accused Claudio Arca'a, $ho, after initiating
the%, turned the% over to accused Cadislao . Cru;, A *eed of
Absolute -ale for Cot 4 =45,//6 s#uare %eters valued at P./ per
s#uare %eter> $as prepared b' Cru; $ho also initialed the supporting
docu%ents and trans%itted the% to *istrict Engr. *ata.
?n April @/,459., the *eed of Absolute -ale =E+hs. and "4> $as
signed b' *ata and utierre; =as attorne'"in"fact of Agleha%>.
Thereafter, *ata sent the papers to *irector *esiderio Anolin of the
Bureau of Public 3or(s $ho reco%%ended to the Assistant -ecretar'
of Public 3or(s the approval of the *eed of -ale =E+h. "4>.
After$ards, the docu%ents $ere returned to *ata)s office for the
transfer of title to the overn%ent. ?n June ., 459., the sale $as
registered and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T"4@/94 =E+h. T> $as
issued in the na%e of the overn%ent.
eneral Joucher =E+h. -> No. .8"@"9./5"8@ dated 75I@5I9.7 for the
a%ount of P4,8@/,:@/ bore fourth certifications of. =4> Cru; as -enior
Civil EngineerB =@> Priscillo . 0ernando as -upervising Civil Engineer
,,B =:> Cresencio *ata as *istrict Engineer ,, and =6> Cesar J. 0ranco
as Pro&ect Acting Accountant =p. 8A, -andiganba'an *ecision, p. .:,
,bid.>.
?n ?ctober @:, 459., the voucher and its supporting docu%ents $ere
pre"audited and approved for pa'%ent b' the accused, A%ado C.
Arias, as auditor of the Engineering *istrict. The ne+t da', ?ctober @6,
459., si+teen =4A> PNB chec(s $ith -erial Nos. 4..8:@ to 4..869,
inclusive =E+hs. K to K"4 8>, for the total su% of Pl,8@/,:@/.// $ere
issued to utierre; as pa'%ent for Agleha%)s 45,//6"s#uare"%eter
lot.
,n ?ctober, 4595, an investigation $as conducted b' the Ministr' of
National *efense on the gross overpricing of Agleha%)s propert'.
*uring the investigation, s$orn state%ents $ere ta(en fro% Alfredo
Prudencio, Municipal Treasurer of Pasig =E+h. AA>, Pedro ?col,
Assistant Municipal Assessor of Pasig =E+h. BB>, and the accused
Claudio Arca'a =E+h. EE>. Prudencio denied having issued or signed
the certification dated -epte%ber 46,459. =E+h. J>, attesting that
Agleha%)s propert' covered b' Ta+ *eclaration No. 69.58 had a
%ar(et value of P@,64:,8@/ and that the ta+es had been paid fro%
4598 to 459.. Prudencio also i%pugned the initial =purporting to be
that of his subordinate Ruben atchalian, Chief of the Cand Ta+
*ivision> that $as affi+ed belo$ Prudencio)s t'pe$ritten na%e in
E+hibit J. Both Prudencio and atchalian diso$ned the t'pe$ritten
certification. The' declared that such certifications are usuall' issued
b' their office on %i%eographed for%s =E+h. J"4>.
Assistant Municipal Assessor Pedro ?col produced and ,dentified the
original or genuine Ta+ *eclaration No. 69.58 dated 0ebruar' @9,
459., and a certified cop' thereof =E+h. G"4>. Therein, Agleha%)s
propert' of :/,4A5 s#uare %eters $as classified as a 7ricefield7 and
appraised at P8 per s#uare %eter, $ith an assessed value of PA/,:6/
and a %ar(et value of P, 8/,.8/. ?col testified that the supposed
+ero+ cop' of Ta+ *eclaration No. 69.58 =E+h. B>, $hich utierre;
sub%itted as one of the supporting docu%ents of the general voucher
=E+h. ->, $as fa(e, because of the follo$ing tell"tale signs<
=4> the ta+ declaration nu%ber $as t'pe$ritten, not %achine
nu%bered as in the genuine ta+ declaration, E+hibit GB
=@> the sta%p%ar( of registration $as antedated to *ece%ber 48,
459: in the fa(e, instead of the correct date 0ebruar' @9, 459."" in the
genuine ta+ declarationB
=:> the classification of the propert' $as 7residential,7 instead of
7ricefield7 $hich is its classification in the genuine docu%entB and
=6> the lot $as over priced at P./ per s#uare %eter in the fa(e ta+
declaration, instead of the appraised value of onl' P8 per s#uare
%eter appearing in the genuine declaration.
Also found to be fa(e $as Ta+ *eclaration No. 6556. in the na%e of
the Republic of the Philippines =E+hs. L and L"4>. The genuine Ta+
*eclaration No. 6556. =E+hs. 2 and J"@> $as actuall' filed on ?ctober
4., 459. in the na%es of the spouses Moises Javillonar and -ofia
Andres, for their 85."s#uare"%eters) residential propert' $ith a
declared %ar(et value of P84,A:/.
The Agleha% deed of sale $as pre"audited b' the auditor of the Ri;al
Engineering *istrict, A%ado Arias, $ho approved the pa'%ent of
Pl,8@/,:@/ to utierre; $ithout #uestioning the fact that the a%ount of
the purchase price therein had been altered, i.e., 7sno$"fla(ed =sic>
and later superi%posed b' the a%ount of P4,8@/,:@/ in $ords and
figures7 =p. 94, -andiganba'an *ecision, p. 5., !bid.>, nor chec(ing
the veracit' of the supporting docu%ents listed at the bac( of the
eneral Joucher =E+h. ->, nu%bering fifteen =48> in all, a%ong $hich
$ere<
=4> the fa(e Ta+ *eclaration No. 69.58 sho$ing that the value of the
land $as P./ per s#uare %eter =E+h. B>B
=@> fa(e Ta+ *eclaration No. 6556. ,n the na%e of the Republic of the
Philippines =E+h. L>
=:> the forged certification of Municipal Treasurer Prudencio that the
fair %ar(et value of )the land $as P4// per s#uare %eter =E+h. J>B
=6> a false certification =E+h. *> dated -epte%ber 45, 459. signed b'
accused Cru;, Jose, and 0ernando, certif'ing that the Agleha%
propert' $as upon ocular inspection b' the%, found to be
7residentialB7
=8> a falsel' dated certification $here the original date $as erased and
a false date =0ebruar' 48, 459.> $as superi%posed =E+h.E>, issued
b' Engr. 0ernando pursuant to *P3TC Circular No. 889, certif'ing
that he had e+a%ined the real estate ta+ receipts of the Agleha%
propert' for the last three =:> 'earsB
=A> the technical description of the land =E+hs. 0 and 0"4> attached to
the deed of sale dated April @/, 459. $as not an approved technical
description for the subdivision surve' e+ecuted b' eodetic Engineer
Cipriano C. Caro $as verified and approved b' the Cand Registration
Co%%ission on Ma' @.,459. onl'. There $ere 7substantial variations7
noted b' the -andiganba'an bet$een the approved technical
description and the technical description of the land in the deed of sale
=p. A4, -andiganba'an *ecision, p. .., !bid.>B
=9> the special po$er of attorne' dated 0ebruar' @6, 459., supposedl'
given to utierre; b' Agleha% =E+hs. C, C"4> bore a fictitious
residence certificate Agleha% =p. A6, -andiganba'an *ecision, p.
54, !bid.>B and
=.> the fa(e -$orn -tate%ent on the Current and 0air Mar(et Jalue of
Real Properties =E+h. M> dated ?ctober 4, 459:, contained a forged
signature of Agleha%, presu%abl' %ade b' utierre; herself The
-andiganba'an observed that Agleha%)s supposed signature
7appears to be ,dentical to accused utierre;) signatures in the
eneral Joucher =E+h. ->, in the release and Huitclai% $hich she
signed in favor of Agleha% on Jul' @/, 45.: =E+h. CC>, and in her
affidavits =E+hs. 00 and 00"4>.7 =pp. A6"A8, -andiganba'an *ecision,
pp. 54"5@, !bid.>.
After pa'%ent of the Agleha% clai%, all the supporting docu%ents
$ere (ept b' Arias. Even after he had been replaced b' Julito
Pesa'co on -epte%ber 4, 45.4, as auditor of the Ri;al Engineering
*istrict, he did not turn over the docu%ents to Pesa'co. ,t $as onl' on
June @:, 45.@, after this case had been filed in the -andiganba'an
and the trial had begun, that Arias delivered the% to Pesa'co =E+h. T"
4>.
After a trial lasting nearl' si+ 'ears, the -andiganba'an rendered a
9."page decision on Nove%ber 4A, 45.9, $hose dispositive portion
reads as follo$s<
31ERE0?RE, &udg%ent is hereb' rendered finding
accused Natividad . utierre;, Cresencio *. *ata,
Cadislao . Cru;, Carlos C. Jose, Claudio 1. Arca'a and
A%ado C. Arias 2,CTG be'ond reasonable doubt of the
violation of -ection :, paragraph =e> of Republic Act No.
:/45, as ascended, other$ise (no$n as the Anti"raft and
Corrupt Practices Act, and hereb' sentences each of the%
to suffer the penalt' of i%prison%ent for T1REE =:>
GEAR-, as %ini%u% to -,K =A> GEAR-, as %a+i%u%B to
further suffer perpetual dis#ualification fro% public officeB to
inde%nif' &ointl' and severall', the overn%ent of the
Republic of the Philippines in the a%ount of P4,6@8,://,
and to pa' their proportional costs of this action. =p. 4/6,
Rollo of .R. No. .48A:.>
Both Arias and *ata appealed.
Arias anchors his petition for revie$ of the -andiganba'an)s decision
=.R. No. .48A:> on his contention that the court)s findings that he
conspired $ith his co"accused and that he $as grossl' negligent are
based on %isapprehension of facts, speculation, sur%ise, and
con&ecture.
*ata)s %ain defense is that the ac#uisition of the Agleha% propert'
$as the $or( of the co%%ittee of Prescillo 0ernando iii $hich he did
not ta(e an active part, and that the price $hich the govern%ent paid
for it $as reasonable. 1ence, it uttered no &ur' in the transaction.
,n his consolidated brief or co%%ent for the -tate, the -olicitor
eneral reco%%ends the ac#uittal of the petitioners because the
Agleha% propert' $as allegedl' not grossl' overpriced.
After deliberating on the petitions in these cases, $e find no error in
the decision under revie$. The -andiganba'an did not err in finding
that the petitioners conspired $ith their co"accused to cause in&ur' to
the overn%ent and to undul' favor the lot o$ner, Agleha%.
A conspirac' need not be proved b' direct evidence of the acts
charged, but %a' and generall' %ust be proven b' a nu%ber of
indefinite acts, conditions and circu%stances =People vs. Maralit, .R.
No. 9446:, -ept. 45,45..B People vs. Roca, .R. No. 99995, June @9,
45..>.
This case presents a conspirac' of silence and inaction $here chiefs
of office $ho should have been vigilant to protect the interest of the
overn%ent in the purchase of Agleha%)s t$o"hectare riceland,
accepted as gospel truth the certifications of their subordinates, and
approved $ithout #uestion the %illion"peso purchase $hich, b' the
standards prevailing in 459A"9., should have pric(ed their curiosit'
and pro%pted the% to %a(e in#uiries and to verif' the authenticit' of
the docu%ents presented to the% for approval. The petitioners (ept
silent $hen the' should have as(ed #uestions the' loo(ed the other
$a' $hen the' should have probed deep into the transaction.
-ince it $as too %uch of a coincidence that both petitioners $ere
negligent at the sa%e ti%e over the sa%e transaction, the
-andiganba'an $as &ustified in concluding that the' connived and
conspired to act in that %anner to approve the illegal transaction
$hich $ould favor the seller of the land and defraud the overn%ent.
3e cannot accept Arias) e+cuse that because the deed of sale had
been signed and the propert' transferred to the overn%ent $hich
received a title in its na%e, there $as nothing else for hi% to do but
approve the voucher for pa'%ent. The pri%ar' function of an auditor is
to prevent irregular, unnecessar', e+cessive or e+travagant
e+penditures of govern%ent funds.
The auditorial function of an auditor, as a representative of the
Co%%ission on Audit, co%prises three aspects< =4> e+a%inationB =@>
audit< and =:> settle%ent of the accounts, funds, financial transactions
and resources of the agencies under their respective audit &urisdiction
=-ec. 6:, overn%ent Auditing Code of the Phil.>. E+a%ination, as
applied to auditing, %eans 7to probe records, or inspect securities or
other docu%entsB revie$ procedures, and #uestion persons, all for the
purpose of arriving at an opinion of accurac', propriet', sufficienc',
and the li(e.7 =-tate Audit Code of the Philippines, Annotated b'
Tantuico, 45.@ Ed., p. 89.>
Arias ad%itted that he did not chec( or verif' the papers supporting
the general voucher that $as sub%itted to hi% for pa'%ent of
Pl,8@/,:@/ to Agleha% or his attorne'"in"fact, Natividad utierre;.
Arias did not #uestion an' person for the purpose of deter%ining the
accurac' and integrit' of the docu%ents sub%itted to hi% and the
reasonableness of the price that the overn%ent $as pa'ing for the
less than t$o"hectare riceland. 3e re&ect his casuistic e+planation that
since his subordinates had passed upon the transaction, he could
assu%e that it $as la$ful and regular for, if he $ould be a %ere rubber
sta%p for his subordinates, his position as auditor $ould be useless
and unnecessar'.
3e %a(e the sa%e observation concerning *istrict Engineer
Cresencio *ata $ho clai%s innocence because he allegedl' did not
ta(e an' direct and active participation in the ac#uisition of the
Agleha% propert', thro$ing the bla%e on the co%%ittee $hich he
created, co%posed of 0ernando, Asuncion, Mendo;a, Cru;, 1uco%
and Jose that negotiated $ith the propert' o$ners for the purchase of
properties on the path of the Mangahan 0lood$a' Pro&ect. 1e in effect
$ould hide under the s(irt of the co%%ittee $hich he hi%self selected
and to $hich he delegated the tas( that $as assigned to his office to
,dentif' the lots that $ould be traversed b' the flood$a' pro&ect,
gather and verif' docu%ents, %a(e surve's, negotiate $ith the
o$ners for the price, prepare the deeds of sale, and process clai%s
for pa'%ent. B' appointing the co%%ittee, he did not cease to be
responsible for the i%ple%entation of the pro&ect. 2nder the principle
of co%%and responsibilit', he $as responsible for the %anner in
$hich the co%%ittee perfor%ed its tas(s for it $as he $ho in fact
signed the deed of sale prepared b' the co%%ittee. B' signing the
deed of sale and certifications prepared for his signature b' his
co%%ittee, he in effect, %ade their acts his o$n. 1e is, therefore,
e#uall' guilt' $ith those %e%bers of the co%%ittee =0ernando, Cru;
and Jose> $ho accepted the fa(e ta+ declarations and %ade false
certifications regarding the use and value of the Agleha% propert'.
The -olicitor eneral has pointed out that *ata signed, but did not
approve, the deed of sale of Agleha%)s propert' because the approval
thereof $as the prerogative of the -ecretar' of Public 3or(s. ,t should
not be overloo(ed, ho$ever, that *ata)s signature on the deed of sale
$as e#uivalent to an attestation that the transaction $as fair, honest
and legal. ,t $as he $ho $as charged $ith the tas( of i%ple%enting
the Mangahan 0lood$a' Pro&ect $ithin his engineering district.
3e find no %erit in the -olicitor eneral)s argu%ent that the Agleha%
riceland $as not overpriced because the price of P./ per s#uare
%eter fi+ed in the deed of sale $as reasonable, hence, the petitioners
are not guilt' of having caused undue in&ur' and pre&udice to the
overn%ent, nor of having given un$arranted benefits to the propert'
o$ner andIor his attorne'"in"fact, utierre;. 1e further argues that the
valuation in the o$ner)s genuine ta+ declaration %a' not be used as a
standard in deter%ining the fair %ar(et value of the propert' because
P* Nos. 9A and 6A6 =%a(ing it %andator' in e+propriation cases to fi+
the price at the value of the propert' as declared b' the o$ner, or as
deter%ined b' the assessor, $hichever is lo$er>, $ere declared null
and void b' this Court in the case of "#port Processin$ %one
&uthority 7"P%&8 vs. 'uay, 465 -CRA :/8, and other related cases.
That argu%ent is not $ell ta(en because P* Nos. 9A and 6A6 =before
the' $ere nullified> applied to the e+propriation of propert' for public
use. The ac#uisition of Agleha%)s riceland $as not done b'
e+propriation but through a negotiated sale. ,n the course of the
negotiations, there $as absolutel' no ae$ation nor proof that the
price of P./ per s#uare %eter $as its fair %ar(et value in 459., i.e.,
eleven =44> 'ears ago. 3hat the accused did $as to prove the value of
the land through fa(e ta+ declarations =E+hs. B, 0, L>, false
certifications =E+hs. J, * and E> and a forged s$orn state%ent on the
current and fair %ar(et value of the real propert' =E+h. M> sub%itted b'
the accused in support of the deed of sale. Because fraudulent
docu%ents $ere used, it %a' not be said that the -tate agreed to pa'
the price on the basis of its fairness, for the overn%ent $as in fact
deceived concerning the reasonable value of the land.
3hen ?col testified in 958: that P./ $as a reasonable valuation for
the Agleha%)s land, he did not clarif' that $as also its reasonable
value in 4598, before real estate values in Pasig soared as a result of
the i%ple%entation of the Mangahan 0lood$a' Pro&ect. 1ence, ?col)s
testi%on' $as insufficient to rebut the valuation in Agleha%)s genuine
459. Ta+ *eclaration No. 69.58 that the fair valuation of the riceland
then $as onl' P8 per s#uare %eter. A Ta+ *eclaration is a guide or
indicator of the reasonable value of the propert' =EPMA vs.
*ula', supra>.
The petitioner)s partialit' for Agleha%Iutierre; %a' be inferred fro%
their having deliberatel' closed their e'es to the defects and
irregularities of the transaction in his favor and their see%ing neglect,
if not deliberate o%ission, to chec(, the authenticit' of the docu%ents
presented to the% for approval. -ince partialit' is a %ental state or
predilection, in the absence of direct evidence, it %a' be proved b'
the attendant circu%stance instances.
31ERE0?RE, , vote to affir% in toto the decision of the
-andiganba'an in -B Cri%. Case No. @/4/, $ith costs against the
petitioners, A%ado Arias and Cresencio *ata.
.eiciano* Padia* ;armiento and 4e$aado* 00.* concur.
-oo&(o&e)
4 The -olicitor eneral $as assisted b' Assistant -olicitor
eneral Moilo A. Andi and -olicitor Cuis 0. -i%on.