arias v sandiganbayan

8/20/2019 Arias v Sandiganbayan

1/25

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

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 thecri%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


2/25

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: $ere sold as residential land7 in 459 forP/.// a s#uare %eter. The land for the flood$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 badfaith, 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.


3/25

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 $hich is the ob&ect of the contractand upon the price =Article 4698, Ne$ 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. 9> that )the value of lands $ithin the to$n of

Pasig ranges fro% P/.// to P8//.//) =!bid , p. @4> that the Agleha% propert' is

7around :// %eters7 fro% ?rtigas Avenue, 7ad&acent to the e+isting eongson

Dia%son -ubdivision ... and near Eastland ar%ent Building7 = !bid , pp. 4@"4:> that

said propert' is surrounded b' factories, co%%ercial establish%ents and residential

subdivisions =!bid , pp. 9:"96> 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. @"@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 thee+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. @8"@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/ D459> $e struc( do$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.


4/25

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 officecould 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 %oreappalling.

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


5/25

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' didnot (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%. and 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 thisis 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, 454. 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


6/25

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 @9,459>.

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%ent the sale $as

consu%%ated 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 @9,459>.

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 @9,459>. ... 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


7/25

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. @5, A

The' are not re#uired docu%ents that an auditor %ust see. =T-N,

page @:, April @9,459>.

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, 459>. =At pp. 48"4, 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 aco%%ittee, headed b' Engr. Priscillo 0ernando $ith Ricardo Asuncion, Alfonso

Mendo;a, adislao 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%ents he did not ta(e an'

direct and active part in the ac#uisition of land for the Mangahan flood$a' 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 sale

thereafter, the co%%ittee sub%itted the deed of sale together $ith the supporting

docu%ents to petitioner *ata for signing on the basis of the supporting certified

docu%ents $hich appeared regular and co%plete on their face, petitioner *ata, ashead 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(s 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(s 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 level after the approval of the deed of sale b' the higher

authorities the covering voucher for pa'%ent thereof $as prepared $hich petitioner

*ata signed petitioner *ata did not (no$ utierre; and had never %et her during

the processing and pa'%ent of her clai%s =tsn, 0ebruar' @, 459, pp. 4/"46, 4"@6,

:4":@>. =At pp. @9"@, 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


8/25

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% P4,86,@6/.// to P4,8@/,:@/.// does not

prove conspirac'. t %a' be noted that there $as a reduction in the affected areafro% the esti%ated 45,:@ s#uare %eters to 45,//6 s#uare %eters as approved b'

the and Registration Co%%ission, $hich resulted in the corresponding reduction in

the purchase price fro% P4,86,@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 incorporatingtherein the technical description as approved b' the and 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* /..* Narvasa* 1eencio2+errera* /ru-* Paras* Gancayco* 3idin* /ortes and 1ediadea* .*

concur.

Se$%r%&e O$'('o()


9/25

GRI*O+AUINO, 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 havingviolated -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$a' Pro&ect in Pasig, Ri;al. The pertinent provision of the Anti"raft a$ 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 Manila 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&ect 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&ect

accused /aros L. ose 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&ect accused/audio +. &rcaya, then the Ad%inistrative ?fficer of theRi;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&ect 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 attorney2


10/25

in2fact 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. 2ose 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' causeundue 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 oucher 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. 6958 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 Manila 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@/,:@/.// $asP5@,/@/.// onl' 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. 48:.>

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. 48:>.

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 thenorthern 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.

8, !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


11/25

-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. @,

-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 @9,459, 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 :/,45"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 =RC> Psd"@968 $hich $as approved b' the and Registration

Co%%ission on June 4, 459 =Entr' No. @9:55I4@/94, E+h. 1>. ot 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. @@6 =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. 6958 =E+h. G"4> $as issued for the sa%e ricefield7 $ith a revised areaof :/,45 s#uare %eters. The declared %ar(et value $as P48/,8/ =or P8 per s#uare %eter>, and

the assessed value $as P/,:6/.

Ten %onths later, or on *ece%ber 48, 459, Ta+ *eclaration No. 6958 $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:/4,5/ =P4/ per s#uare %eter>. ts assessed value $as fi+ed at P4@/,/. 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. 6958 =E+h. B> bearing a false date<

*ece%ber 48,459: =instead of 0ebruar' @9, 459> and describing Agleha%)s :/,45"s#uare"%eter


12/25

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,/8 =instead of P/,: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 alue of Real Propert'7 re#uired under P.*. No. 9 =E+h. 4>. The +ero+

cop' of Ta+ *eclaration No. 6958 $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 adislao . Cru;, A *eed of

Absolute -ale for ot 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 thetransfer 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 oucher =E+h. -> No. 8"@"9/5"8@ dated 75I@5I97 for the a%ount of P4,8@/,:@/ bore

fourth certifications of. =4> Cru; as -enior Civil Engineer =@> Priscillo . 0ernando as -upervising

Civil Engineer =:> Cresencio *ata as *istrict Engineer and =6> Cesar . 0ranco as Pro&ect Acting

Accountant =p. 8, -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 =4> PNB chec(s $ith -erial Nos. 48:@ to 4869, inclusive =E+hs. K toK"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. 6958 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 and Ta+ *ivision> that $as affi+ed belo$ Prudencio)st'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. 6958 dated 0ebruar' @9, 459, and a certified cop' thereof =E+h. G"4>. Therein,

Agleha%)s propert' of :/,45 s#uare %eters $as classified as a 7ricefield7 and appraised at P8 per


13/25

s#uare %eter, $ith an assessed value of P/,:6/ and a %ar(et value of P 8/,8/. ?col testified

that the supposed +ero+ cop' of Ta+ *eclaration No. 6958 =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 G

=@> 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+ declaration

=:> the classification of the propert' $as 7residential,7 instead of 7ricefield7 $hich is its classification

in the genuine docu%ent 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 "@> $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,:/.

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

oucher =E+h. ->, nu%bering fifteen =48> in all, a%ong $hich $ere<

=4> the fa(e Ta+ *eclaration No. 6958 sho$ing that the value of the land $as P/ per s#uare %eter

=E+h. 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>

=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 be7residential7

=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

=:> 'ears


14/25

=> 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 and 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. 4,

-andiganba'an *ecision, p. , !bid .>

=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. 6, -andiganba'an

*ecision, p. 54, !bid .> and

=> the fa(e -$orn -tate%ent on the Current and 0air Mar(et alue of Real Properties =E+h. >

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 oucher =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. 6"8, -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, 454, 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

4, 459, $hose dispositive portion reads as follo$s<

31ERE0?RE, &udg%ent is hereb' rendered finding accused Natividad . utierre;,Cresencio *. *ata, adislao . Cru;, Carlos . Jose, Claudio 1. Arca'a and A%ado

C. Arias 2TG 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 => GEAR-, as %a+i%u%

to further suffer perpetual dis#ualification fro% public office 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. 48:.>

Both Arias and *ata appealed.

Arias anchors his petition for revie$ of the -andiganba'an)s decision =.R. No. 48:> 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.


15/25

*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 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 459"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%ination =@> 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%ents revie$ procedures, and #uestion persons, all for

the purpose of arriving at an opinion of accurac', propriet', sufficienc', and the li(e.7 =-tate AuditCode 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


16/25

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+ declarationsand %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, thepetitioners 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. 9 and 66 =%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%& vs. 'uay , 465 -CRA :/8, and other

related cases.

That argu%ent is not $ell ta(en because P* Nos. 9 and 66 =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. > sub%itted b' the

accused in support of the deed of sale. Because fraudulent docu%ents $ere used, it %a' not be said


17/25

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' $asinsufficient to rebut the valuation in Agleha%)s genuine 459 Ta+ *eclaration No. 6958 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' =EPA 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* .* concur.

Se$%r%&e O$'('o()

GRI*O+AUINO, J., dissenting<

The lone issue in these consolidated petitions for revie$ is $hether the -andiganba'an co%%itted areversible 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$a' Pro&ect in Pasig, Ri;al. The pertinent provision of the Anti"raft a$ 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.


18/25

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 ofprivate lands for the right"of"$a' of the Mangahan 0lood$a' Pro&ect of the

overn%ent at -itio Mangahan, Rosario, Pasig, Metro Manila 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&ect 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&ect

accused /aros L. ose 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&ect 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 papersand docu%ents pertaining to private lands ac#uired b' the overn%ent for the

Mangahan 0lood$a' Pro&ect 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 attorney2

in2fact 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. 2ose 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 andIorad%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 oucher 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. 6958 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 above2statedsupportin$ 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


19/25

at -agad, Pasig, Metro Manila 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' 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. 48:.>

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. 48:>.

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>. Anannounce%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.

8, !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. @,

-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 @9,459, 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 :/,45"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 =RC> Psd"@968 $hich $as approved b' the and Registration

Co%%ission on June 4, 459 =Entr' No. @9:55I4@/94, E+h. 1>. ot 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.


20/25

?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. @@6 =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. 6958 =E+h. G"4> $as issued for the sa%e ricefield7 $ith a revised area

of :/,45 s#uare %eters. The declared %ar(et value $as P48/,8/ =or P8 per s#uare %eter>, and

the assessed value $as P/,:6/.

Ten %onths later, or on *ece%ber 48, 459, Ta+ *eclaration No. 6958 $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:/4,5/ =P4/ per s#uare %eter>. ts assessed value $as fi+ed at P4@/,/. 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. 6958 =E+h. B> bearing a false date<

*ece%ber 48,459: =instead of 0ebruar' @9, 459> and describing Agleha%)s :/,45"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,/8 =instead of P/,: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 alue of Real Propert'7 re#uired under P.*. No. 9 =E+h. 4>. The +ero+

cop' of Ta+ *eclaration No. 6958 $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 adislao . Cru;, A *eed of

Absolute -ale for ot 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 thetransfer 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 oucher =E+h. -> No. 8"@"9/5"8@ dated 75I@5I97 for the a%ount of P4,8@/,:@/ bore

fourth certifications of. =4> Cru; as -enior Civil Engineer =@> Priscillo . 0ernando as -upervising

Civil Engineer =:> Cresencio *ata as *istrict Engineer and =6> Cesar . 0ranco as Pro&ect Acting

Accountant =p. 8, -andiganba'an *ecision, p. :, bid .>.


21/25

?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 =4> PNB chec(s $ith -erial Nos. 48:@ to 4869, 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. 6958 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 and 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. 6958 dated 0ebruar' @9, 459, and a certified cop' thereof =E+h. G"4>. Therein,

Agleha%)s propert' of :/,45 s#uare %eters $as classified as a 7ricefield7 and appraised at P8 per

s#uare %eter, $ith an assessed value of P/,:6/ and a %ar(et value of P 8/,8/. ?col testified

that the supposed +ero+ cop' of Ta+ *eclaration No. 6958 =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 G

=@> 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+ declaration

=:> the classification of the propert' $as 7residential,7 instead of 7ricefield7 $hich is its classification

in the genuine docu%ent 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 "@> $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,:/.

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


22/25

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

oucher =E+h. ->, nu%bering fifteen =48> in all, a%ong $hich $ere<

=4> the fa(e Ta+ *eclaration No. 6958 sho$ing that the value of the land $as P/ per s#uare %eter

=E+h. 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>

=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

7residential7

=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

=:> 'ears

=> 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 and 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. 4,

-andiganba'an *ecision, p. , !bid .>

=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. 6, -andiganba'an

*ecision, p. 54, !bid .> and

=> the fa(e -$orn -tate%ent on the Current and 0air Mar(et alue of Real Properties =E+h. >

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 oucher =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. 6"8, -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, 454, 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>.


23/25

After a trial lasting nearl' si+ 'ears, the -andiganba'an rendered a 9"page decision on Nove%ber

4, 459, $hose dispositive portion reads as follo$s<

31ERE0?RE, &udg%ent is hereb' rendered finding accused Natividad . utierre;,

Cresencio *. *ata, adislao . Cru;, Carlos . Jose, Claudio 1. Arca'a and A%ado

C. Arias 2TG 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 => GEAR-, as %a+i%u%

to further suffer perpetual dis#ualification fro% public office 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. 48:.>

Both Arias and *ata appealed.

Arias anchors his petition for revie$ of the -andiganba'an)s decision =.R. No. 48:> on hiscontention 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 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 459"9, should have pric(ed theircuriosit' 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


24/25

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%ination =@> 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%ents 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 $assub%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 thepurchase 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.


25/25

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. 9 and 66 =%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%& vs. 'uay , 465 -CRA :/8, and other

related cases.

That argu%ent is not $ell ta(en because P* Nos. 9 and 66 =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$ornstate%ent on the current and fair %ar(et value of the real propert' =E+h. > 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. 6958 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' =EPA 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* .* concur.

-oo&(o&e)

4 The -olicitor eneral $as assisted b' Assistant -olicitor eneral oilo A. Andi and

-olicitor uis 0. -i%on.

arias v sandiganbayan

Documents