SYLLABUS
1.REME MEDI AL LAW; W; EVI DENCE; CONSPI RACY; PROOF OF EXI STENCE THEREOF.— A conspi r acyneednotbepr ovedbydi r ectevi denceoft heact s c h ar g ed ,b utma ya ndg en er a l l ymu s tb ep r o v e nb yan umb ero fi n de fi ni t ea c t s , c o nd i t i o nsa nd c i r c u ms ms t a nc e s( Pe op l ev s .Ma r a l i t ,G. R.No .7 11 43 ,Se pt .1 9, 1 98 8;Pe op l ev s .Ro c a,G. R.No .7 777 9,J u ne27 ,1 988 ) . 2.I D. ;I D. ;I D. ; EST ABLI SHED BY THE SI LENCE AND I NACTI ON OF ACCUSED.— Thi scasepr esent saconspi r acyofsi l enceandi nact i on wher e c hi ef s ofoffic e who s houl d ha v e been v i gi l antt o pr o t ec tt he i nt er es toft he Go v er n me me nti nt h ep ur c h as eo fAg l eh am' st wo h ec t ar er i c e l a nd ,a c c ep t ed a s gos pelt r ut ht he c er t i fi c at i ons oft hei rs ubor di nat es ,and appr o v ed wi t hout ques t i ont hemi l l i onpes opur c has ewhi c h,byt hes t andar dspr ev ai l i ngi n197678, s houl dha v epr i c k edt hei rc ur i os i t yandpr ompt edt hem t omak ei nqui r i esandt o v er i f yt he aut hent i c i t yoft he doc ument spr es ent ed t ot hem f ora ppr o v al .The pe t i t i oner sk epts i l entwhent he ys houl dha v eas k edques t i ons ;t he yl ook edt he o t herwa ywhent he ys houl dha v epr obeddeepi nt ot het r ans ac t i on.Si nc ei twas t oomuc hofac oi nc i denc et hatbot hpe t i t i oner swer enegl i gentatt hes amet i me o v ert hes amet r ans ac t i on,t heSandi ganba y anwasj us t i fi edi nc onc l udi ngt hat t h ey c o nn i v e da nd c o ns p i r e dt oa c ti nt h atma nn ert oa pp r o v et h ei l l e ga l t r ans ac t i onwhi c hwoul df a vort hes el l eroft hel andanddef r audt heGo v er nment . 3.ADMI NI STRATI VE LAW; W; ST ATE AUDI T CODE OF THE PHI LI PPI NES; ASPECTSOF OFTHEAUDI TI ONALFUNCTI ON OFAN AUDI TOR.— Thepr i mar y f unc t i on ofan audi t or i st o pr e v enti r r egul ar ,unnec es s ar y ,ex c e ss i v e or e x t r a v agante x pendi t ur es ofg ov er nmentf unds .The audi t or i alf unc t i on ofa n a ud i t or ,a sar e pr e s en t a t i v e oft he Co mmi mm s s i o no n Au di t ,c o mp mp r i s e st h r ee as pec t s :( 1)e x ami nat i on;( 2)a udi t :and( 3)s e t t l ementoft heac c ount s ,f unds , fi nanc i alt r ans ac t i onsandr es our c esoft heagenc i esundert hei rr es pec t i v eaudi t j ur i s di c t i on( Sec .43,Gov er nmentAudi t i ngCodeoft hePhi l . ) .Ex ami nat i on,as appl i ed t o audi t i ng,means " t o pr obe r ec or ds ,o ri ns pec ts ec ur i t i es orot her
d oc ume nt s ;r e v i e w pr oc e du r e s ,a nd qu es t i o np er s o ns ,a l lf o rt h ep ur po s eo f ar r i v i ngatanopi ni onofac cur ac y ,pr opr i et y ,s uffic i enc y ,andt hel i k e. "( St at eAudi t Codeoft hePhi l i ppi nes ,Annot at edbyTant ui c o,1982Ed. ,p.57. ) 4.REME MEDI AL LAW; W; SPECI AL CI VI L ACTI ON; EMI MI NENT DOMAI N; T AX DECLARATI ON;A GUI DE OR I NDI CATOR OFTHE REASONABLE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.— The acqui si t i on ofAgl eham' m' sr i cel and wasnotdone by ex pr opr i at i onbutt hr oughanegot i at eds al e.I nt hec our s e oft henegot i at i ons , t her e was abs ol ut el y no al l egat i on norpr ooft h att h ep r i c e ofP8 0p ers q ua r e met erwasi t sf ai rmar k etv al uei n1978,i . e. ,el ev en( 11)y ear sago.Whatt he ac c us eddi dwast opr o v et hev a l ueoft hel andt hr oughf ak et axdec l ar at i ons ( Ex h s .B,F ,K) ,f a l s ec e r t i fi c a t i o ns ( Ex h s .J ,D a nd E)a nd a f or g ed s wor n s t at ementon t he c ur r entand f ai rmar k e tv al ue oft he r ealpr oper t y( Ex h.Z) s u bmi t t e db yt hea c c us edi ns u pp or to ft h ed eedo fs a l e .Be c au sef r a udu l e nt doc ument swer eus ed,i tma yno tbes ai dt hatt heSt at eagr eedt opa yt hepr i c e ont hebas i sofi t sf ai r nes s,f ort heGov er nmentwasi nf ac tdec ei v edc onc er ni ng t h er e as o na bl ev a l u e oft h el a nd .Wh Wh enOc o lt e s t i fi edi n1 98 3 t hatP80wasa r eas onabl ev al uat i onf ort heAgl eham' sl and,hedi dnotc l ar i f yt hatwasal s oi t s r eas onabl ev al uei n1975,bef or er eales t at ev al uesi nPas i gs oar edasar es ul tof t hei mpl ement at i onoft heMangahanFl oodwa yPr oj ec t .Henc e,Oc ol ' st es t i mon y wasi ns uffic i entt or ebutt hev al uat i oni nAgl eham' sgenui ne1978T axDec l ar at i on No.47895t hatt hef ai rv a l uat i onoft her i c el andt henwasonl yP5pers quar e met er .A T axDec l ar at i oni sagui deori ndi c at oro ft her eas onabl ev al ueoft he pr oper t y( EPZAvs. Dul ay ,149SCRA305) . 5.I D. ; EVI DENCE; PARTI ALI TY; MAYBE PROVEN
BY ATTENDANT
CI RCUMSTANCESI N THEABSENCEOFDI RECTEVI DENCE.— Par t i al i t yf or Agl eham/ Gut i er r ezma y be i nf er r ed f r om t hei rh av i ng del i ber at el yc l os ed t hei r ey est ot he def ec t sand i r r egul ar i t i esoft he t r ans ac t i on i n hi sf av ora nd t hei r s eemi ng negl ec t ,i fnotd el i ber at e omi s si on,t oc hec k,t he aut hent i c i t yoft he doc ument spr es ent edt ot hem f ora ppr o val .Si nc epar t i al i t yi sament als t at eor pr edi l ec t i on,i nt heabs enc eofdi r ec tev i denc e,i tma ybepr ov edbyt heat t endant c i r c ums t anc es .
( Ar i a sv .Sa nd i g anb ay a n,G. R.No .8 15 63,8 25 12 ,[ De c embe r1 9,1 98 9] )
| | |
EN BANC
G.R. No. 81563 December 19, 1989 AMADO C. ARIAS, petitioner, vs.
THE SANDIGANBAYAN, respondent. G.R. No. 82512 December 19, 1989 CRESENCIO D. DATA, petitioner, vs.
THE SANDIGANBAYAN, respondent. Paredes Law Office for petitioner.
GTIERRE!, "R., J.: The facts of this case are stated in the dissenting opinion of Justice Carolina C. Griño-Aquino hich follos this !a"orit# opinion. The dissent su$stantiall# reiterates the draft report prepared $# Justice Griño-Aquino as a or%ing $asis for the Court&s deli$erations hen the case as $eing discussed and for the su$sequent votes of concurrence or dissent on the action proposed $# the report. There is no dispute over the events hich transpired. The division of the Court is on the conclusions to $e dran fro! those events and the facts insofar as the to petitioners are concerned. The !a"orit# is of the vie that 'essrs. Arias and (ata should $e acquitted on grounds of reasona$le dou$t. The Court feels that the quantu! of evidence needed to convict petitioners Arias and (ata $e#ond reasona$le dou$t, as co-conspirators in the conspirac# to cause undue in"ur# to the Govern!ent through the irregular dis$urse!ent and e)penditure of p u$lic funds, has not $een satisfied. *n acquitting the petitioners, the Court agrees ith the +olicitor-General 1 ho, in pages of his consolidated !anifestation and !otion, reco!!ended that 'essrs. Arias and (ata $e acquitted of the cri!e charged, ith costs de oficio. Earlier, Tanod$a#an +pecial rosecutor Eleuterio /. Guerrero had also reco!!ended the dropping of Arias fro! the infor!ation $efore it as filed. There is no question a$out the need to ferret out and convict pu$lic officers hose acts have !ade the $idding out and construction of pu $lic or%s and higha#s s#non#!ous ith graft or cri!inal inefficienc# in the pu$lic e#e. 0oever, 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 ha d a hand so!ehere in its i!ple!entation. The careless use of the conspirac# theor# !a# seep into "ail even innocent persons ho !a# have $een !ade unitting tools $# the cri!inal !inds ho engineered the defraudation. 1nder the +andigan$a#an&s decision in this case, a depart!ent secretar#, $ureau chief, co!!ission chair!an, agenc# head, and all chief auditors ould $e equall# culpa$le for ever# cri!e arising fro! dis$urse!ents hich the# have approved. The depart!ent head or chief auditor ould $e guilt# of conspirac# si!pl# $ecause 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. Guilt !ust $e pre!ised on a !ore %noing, personal, and deli$erate participation of each individual ho is charged ith others as part of a conspirac#. The records sho that the si) accused p ersons ere convicted in connection ith the overpricing of land purchased $# the Bureau of u$lic 2or%s for the 'angahan /looda# ro"ect. The pro"ect as intended to ease the perennial floods in 'ari%ina and asig, 'etro 'anila. The accused ere prosecuted $ecause 34,5 square !eters of 6riceland6 in 7osario, asig hich had $een assessed at 8. a square !eter in 349: ere sold as residential land6 in 349 for . a square !eter. The land for the flooda# as acquired through n egotiated purchase, 2e agree ith the +olicitor-General that the assessor&s ta) valuation of 8. per square !eter of land in 7osario, asig, 'etro 'anila is co!pletel# unrealistic and ar$itrar# as the $asis for conviction. 0erein lies the first error of the trial court. *t !ust $e stressed that the petitioners are not charged ith conspirac# in the falsification of pu$lic docu!ents or preparation of spurious supporting papers. The charge is causing undue in"ur# to the Govern!ent and giving a private part# u narranted $enefits through !anifest partialit#, evident $ad faith, or ine)cusa$le negligence. The alleged undue in"ur# in a nutshell is the Govern!ent purchase of land in asig, 7i;al for . a square !eter instead of the 8. value per square !eter appearing in the ta) declarations and fi)ed $# the !unicipal assessor, not $# the landoner. The +andigan$a#an, ithout an# clear factual $asis for doing so has assu!ed that the 8. per square !eter value fi)ed $# the assessor i n the ta) declarations as the correct !ar%et value of the 'angahan propert# and if the Govern!ent purchased the land for . a square !eter, it follos that it !ust have suffered undue in"ur#. The +olicitor General e)plains h# this conclusion is erroneous< 3. No undue injury was caused to the Government a. The P80.00 per square rneter acquisition cost is just fair and reasonabe.
*t $ears stress that the Agleha! propert# as acquired through negotiated purchase. *t as, therefor, nothing !ore than an ordinar# contract of sale here the purchase price had to $e arrived at $# agree!ent $eteen the parties and could never $e left to the discretion of one of the contracting parties =Article 359:, Ne Civil Code>. / or it is the essence of a contract of sale that there !ust $e a !eeting of the !inds $eteen the seller and the $u#er upon the thing hich is the o$"ect of the contract and upon the price =Article 3598, Ne Civil Code>. Necessaril#, the parties have to negotiate the reasona$leness of the price, ta%ing into consideration such other factors as location, potentials, surroundings and capa$ilities. After ta%ing the foregoing pre!ises into consideration, the parties have, thus, arrived at the a!ount of . per square !eter as the fair and reasona$le price for the Agleha! propert#. *t $ears stress that the prosecution failed to adduce evidence to prove that the true and fair !ar%et value in 349 of the Agleha! propert# as indeed 8. per square !eter onl# as stated $# the assessor in the ta) declaration =E)hi$it 2>. ?n the contrar#, the prosecution&s principal itness edro ?col, the Assistant 'unicipal Assessor of asig, ad!itted that the purchase price of . per square !eter paid for the Agleha! propert# as stated in the (eed of +ale =E)hi$it G> is reasona$le =tsn, August 34,34:, p. @> and fair =!bid , p. 9> that &the value of lands ithin the ton of asig ranges fro! . to 8.& = !bid , p. @3> that the Agleha! propert# is 6around : !eters6 fro! ?rtigas Avenue, 6ad"acent to the e)isting eongson Dia!son +u$division ... and near Eastland Gar!ent Building6 = !bid , pp. 3@-3:> that said propert# is surrounded $# factories, co!!ercial esta$lish!ents and residential su$divisions =!bid , pp. 9:-95> that the 8. per square !eter assessed valuation of the Agleha! propert# appearing on the ta) declaration =E)hi$it 2> as $ased on actual use onl# =bid , pp. @-@9>, it $eing the unifor! rate for all ricefields in asig irrespective of their locations =!bid , pp. 9@-95> and did not ta%e into account the e)istence of !an# factories and su$divisions in the area =!bid ., pp. @8-@9, 9@-95>, and that the assessed value is different fro! and ala#s loer than the actual !ar%et value =!bid , pp. @@-@:>. =At pp. @8-@84, 7ollo> A negotiated purchase !a# usuall# entail a higher $u#ing price than one arrived at in the course of e)propriation proceedings. *n "#port Processin$ %one &uthority v. 'uay =354 +C7A :8, :3 D349> e struc% don the !artial la decree that pegged "ust co!pensation in e!inent do!ain cases to the assessed value stated $# a landoner in his ta) declaration or fi)ed $# the !unicipal assessor, hichever is loer. ?ther factors !ust $e considered. These factors !ust $e deter!ined $# a court of "ustice and not $# !unicipal e!plo#ees. *n the instant case, the assessor&s lo evaluation, in the fi)ing of hich the landoner had no participation, as used for a purpose infinitel# !ore eight# than !ere e)propriation of land. *t for!s the $asis for a cri!inal conviction.
The Court is not prepared to sa# that . to 8. a square !eter for land in asig in 349 ould $e a fair evaluation. The value !ust $e deter!ined in e!inent do!ain proceedings $# a co!petent court. 2e are certain, hoever, that it cannot $e 8. a square !eter. 0ence, the decision, insofar as it sa#s that the 6correct6 valuation is 8. per square !eter and on that $asis convicted that petitioners of causing undue in"ur#, da!age, and pre"udice to the Govern!ent $ecause of gross overpricing, is grounded on sha%# foundations. There can $e no overpricing for purposes of a cri!inal conviction here no proof adduced during orderl# proceedings has $een presented and accepted. The Court&s decision, hoever, is $ased on a !ore $asic reason. 0erein lies the principal error o f the respondent court. 2e ould $e setting a $ad precedent if a head of office plagued $# all too co!!on pro$le!sdishonest or negligent su$ordinates, overor%, !ultiple assign!ents or positions, or p lain inco!petence is suddenl# sept into a conspirac# conviction si!pl# $ecause 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 $efore affi)ing, his signature as the final approving authorit#. There appears to $e no question fro! the records that docu!ents used in the negotiated sale ere falsified. A %e# ta) declaration had a t#peritten nu!$er instead of $eing !achine-nu!$ered. 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 su$sequent charge of causing undue in in"ur# and da!age to the Govern!entF 2e can, in retrospect, argue that Arias should have pro$ed records, inspected docu!ents, received procedures, and questioned persons. *t is dou$tful 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 $e as%ing for the i!possi$le. All heads of offices have to rel# to a reasona$le e)tent &on their su$ordinates and on the good faith of those prepare $ids, purchase supplies, or enter into negotiations. *f a depart!ent secretar# entertains i!portant visitors, the auditor is not ordinaril# e)pected to call the restaurant a$out the a!ount of the $ill, question each guest hether he as present at the luncheon, inquire hether the correct a!ount of food as served and otherise personay loo% into the rei!$urse!ent voucher&s accurac#, propriet#, and sufficienc#. There has to $e 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 $e signed. There are hundreds of docu!ent , letters and supporting paper that routinel# pass through his hands. The nu!$er i n $igger offices or depart!ents is even !ore appalling. There should $e other grounds than the !ere signature or approval appearing on a voucher to sustain a conspirac# charge and conviction. 2as petitioner Arias part of the planning, preparation, and perpetration of the alleged conspirac# to defraud the govern!entF
Arias "oined the asig office on Jul# 34, 349. The negotiations for the purchase of the propert# started in 3499. The deed of sale as e)ecuted on April @, 349. Title as transferred to the 7epu$lic on June , 349. *n other ords, the transaction had alread# $een consu!!ated $efore his arrival. The pre-audit, incident to pa#!ent of the purchase, as conducted in the first ee% of ?cto$er, 349. Arias points out that apart fro! his signature lin%ing h i! 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 $ig a!ount of 3,8@,:@. have caused hi! to investigate . gate the s!allest detains of the transactionF es, if the land as reall# orth onl# 8. a square !eter. 0oever, if land in asig as alread# orth . a square !eter at the ti!e, no arning $ell of intuition ould have sounded an inner alar!. and along ?rtigas Avenue on the a# to asig is no orth @,. to :,. a square meter . The falsification of the ta) declaration $# changing 6riceland6 to 6residential& as done $efore Arias as assigned to asig $esides, there is no such thing as 6riceland6 in inner 'etro 'anila. +o!e lots in outl#ing or easil# flooded areas !a# still $e planted to rice or %ang%ong $ut this is onl# until the place is dedicated to its real purpose hich is co!!ercial, industrial, or residential. *f the +andigan$a#an is going to send so!e$od# to "ail for si) #ears, the decision should $e $ased on fir!er foundation. The +andigan$a#an as%ed h# Arias %ept the docu!ents fro! ?cto$er, 349 to June @:, 34@. Arias e)plained that the rules of the Co!!ission on Audit require auditors to %eep these d docu!ents and under no circumstanceto relinquish custod# to other persons. Arias as auditor of the Bureau of u$lic 2or%s in asig up to +epte!$er 3, 343. The seven !onths dela# in the for!al turnover of custod# to the ne auditor as e)plained $# prosecution itness Julito esa#co, ho succeeded hi! as auditor and ho too% over the custod# of records in that office. The !ain reason for the "udg!ent of conviction, for the finding of undue in"ur# and da!age to the Govern!ent is the alleged gross overprice for the land purchased for the flooda# pro"ect. Assu!ing that . is indeed e)or$itant, petitioner Arias cites his testi!on# as follos< H *n conducting the pre-audit, did #ou deter!ine the reasona$leness of the price of the propert#F A *n this case, the price has $een stated, the transaction had $een consu!!ated and the corresponding Transfer Certificate of little had $een issued and transferred to the g overn!ent of the hilippines. The auditors have no !ore leea# to return the papers and then question the purchase price. H *s it not a procedure in #our office that $efore pa#!ent is given $# the govern!ent to private individuals there should $e a pre-audit of the papers and the corresponding chec%s issued to the vendorF
A Correct, our 0onor, $ut it depends on the %ind of transaction there is. H es, $ut 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 39, April @9,349>. A No, our 0onor. H 2h# notF A Because in the (eed of +ale as $eing noted there, there is a condition that no pa#!ents ill $e !ade unless the corresponding title in the pa#!ent of the 7epu$lic 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 '# point is this. (id #ou not consider it unusual for a piece of propert# to $e $ought $# the govern!ent the sale as consu!!ated the title as issued in favor of the govern!ent ithout the price $eing 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 es, our 0onor. =T+N, p. 3, April @9,349>. H And of course as auditor, &atch-dog& of the govern!ent there is also that function #ou are also called upon $# going over the papers . . . =T+N, page @@, April @9,349>. * ... vouchers called upon to deter!ine hether there is an# irregularit# as at all in this particular transaction, is it notF A es, 'a&a!. H And that as in fact the reason h# #ou scrutini;ed also, not onl# the ta) declaration $ut also the certification $# 'r. Jose and 'r. Cru;F
A As hat do #ou !ean of the certification, !a&a!F H Certification of 'r. Jose and 'r. Cru; in relation to ( No. @4, A The# are not required docu!ents that an auditor !ust see. =T+N, page @:, April @9,349>. and continuing< A ... The questioning of the purchase price is no $e#ond the authorit# of the auditor $ecause it is inas!uch as the a!ount involved is $e#ond his counter-signing authorit#. =T+N, page :8, April @9, 349>. =At pp. 38-3, etition. 1nderlinings supplied $# petitioner> The +olicitor General su!!ari;es the participation of petitioner (ata as follos< As regards petitioner (ata&s alleged participation, the evidence on record shos that as the then (istrict Engineer of the asig Engineering (istrict he created a co!!ittee, headed $# Engr. riscillo /ernando ith 7icardo Asuncion, Alfonso 'endo;a, adislao Cru;, edro 0uco! and Carlos Jose, all e!plo#ees of the district office, as !e!$ers, specificall# to handle the 'angahan /looda# ro"ect, gather and verif# docu!ents, conduct surve#s, negotiate ith the oners 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 acquisition of land for the 'angahan flooda# it as the co!!ittee hich deter!ined the authenticit# of the docu!ents presented to the! for processing and on the $asis thereof prepared the corresponding deed of sale thereafter, the co!!ittee su$!itted the deed of sale together ith the supporting docu!ents to petitioner (ata for signing on the $asis 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 $ut did not approve the deed of sale =E)hi$it G> as the approval thereof as the prerogative of the +ecretar# of u$lic 2or%s he thereafter trans!itted the signed deed of sale ith its supporting docu!ents to (irector Anolin of the Bureau of u$lic 2or%s ho in turn reco!!ended approval thereof $# the +ecretar# of u$lic 2 or%s the deed of sale as approved $# the Asst. +ecretar# of u$lic 2or%s after a revie and ree)a!ination thereof at that level after the approval of the deed of sale $# the higher authorities the covering voucher for pa#!ent thereof as prepared hich petitioner (ata signed petitioner (ata did not %no Gutierre; and had never !et her during the processing and pa#!ent of her clai!s =tsn, /e$ruar# @, 349, pp. 3-35, 3-@5, :3-:@>. =At pp. @9-@, 7ollo.> ?n the alleged conspirac#, the +olicitor General argues< *t is respectfull# su$!itted that the prosecution li%eise has not shon an# positive and convincing evidence of conspirac# $eteen the petitioners and their co-accused. There as no direct finding of conspirac#. 7espondent 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 question is not supported $# an# evidence on record. Nohere 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 $e officials of the asig (istrict Engineering ?ffice ho signed the deed of sale and passed on pre-audit the general voucher covering the su$"ect sale, respectivel#, does hot raise an# presu!ption or inference, that the# ere part of the alleged plan to defraud the Govern!ent, as indeed there as none. *t should $e re!e!$ered that, as a$oveshon, there as no undue in "ur# caused to the Govern!ent as the negotiated purchase of the Agleha! propert# as !ade at the fair and reasona$le price of . per square !eter. That there ere erasures and superi!positions of the ords and figures of the purchase price in the deed of sale fro! 3,85,@5. to 3,8@,:@. does not prove conspirac#. *t !a# $e noted that there as a reduction in the affected area fro! the esti!ated 34,:@ square !eters to 34,5 square !eters as approved $# the and 7egistration Co!!ission, hich resulted in the corresponding reduction in the purchase price fro! 3,85,@5. to l,8@,:@.. The erasures in the deed of sale ere si!ple corrections that even $enefited the Govern!ent. 'oreover, 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 $ecause the approval of the surve# planI technical description as not a prerequisite to the approval of the deed of sale. 2hat is i!portant is that $efore an# pa#!ent is !ade $# the Govern!ent under the deed of sale the title of the seller !ust have alread# $een cancelled and another one issued to the Govern!ent incorporating therein the technical description as approved $# the and 7egistration Co!!ission, as hat o$tained in the instant case. =At pp. @9:-@98, 7ollo> 2e agree ith the counsel for the eople. There is no adequate evidence to esta$lish the guilt of the petitioners, A!ado C. Arias and Cresencio (. (ata, $e#ond reasona$le dou$t. The inadequate evidence on record is not sufficient to sustain a conviction. 20E7E/?7E, the questioned decision of the +andigan$a#an insofar as it convicts and sentences petitioners A!ado C. Arias and Cresencio (. (ata is here$# +ET A+*(E. etitioners Arias and (ata are acquitted on grounds of reasona$le dou$t. No costs. +? ?7(E7E(. ernan* /..* Narvasa* 1eencio2+errera* /ru-* Paras* Gancayco* 3idin* /ortes and 1ediadea* .* concur.
Se#$r$%e O#&'&o'(
GRI)O*A+INO, J., dissenting< The lone issue in these consolidated petitions for revie is hether the +andigan$a#an co!!itted a reversi$le error in convicting the petitioners, A!ado C. Arias and Cresencio (. (ata, of having violated +ection :, paragraph =e>, of the Anti Graft and Corrupt ractices Act, in connection ith the scandalous overpricing of land purchased $# the Govern!ent as right of a# for its 'angahan /looda# ro"ect in asig, 7i;al. The pertinent provision of the Anti-Graft a reads as follos< +EC. :. Corrupt ractices of u$lic ?fficers-*n addition to acts or o!issions of pu$lic officers alread# penali;ed $# e)isting la. the folloing shall constitute corrupt practices of an# pu$lic officer and are h ere$# declared to $e unlaful< ))))))))) =e> Causing an# undue in"ur# to an# part#, including the Govern!ent, or giving an# private part# an# unarranted $enefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official ad!inistrative or "udicial functions through !anifest partialit#, evident $ad faith or gross ine)cusa$le 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 a$out the period covering April, 349 to ?cto$er 349, in 7osario, asig, 'etro 'anila, hilippines, and ith the " urisdiction of this 0onora$le Court, accused /resencio '. 'ata, $eing then the district Engineer of the province of 7i;al, 'inistr# of u$lic 2or%s, and as such, headed and supervised the acquisition of private lands for the right-of-a# of the 'angahan /looda# ro"ect of the Govern!ent at +itio 'angahan, 7osario, asig, 'etro 'anila accused Priscio G. ernando, then the +upervising Engineer of the ?ffice of the (istrict Engineer of 7i;al, 'inistr# of u$lic 2or%s ho acted as assistant of accused Cresencio (. (ata in the 'angahan /looda# ro"ect accusedLadisao G. /ru- , then the +enior Engineer of the ?ffice of the (istrict Engineer of 7i;al, 'inistr# of u$lic 2or%s, ho as charged ith the acquisition of lots needed for the 'angahan /lo oda# ro"ect accused /aros L. ose then the *nstru!ent!an of the office of the (istrict Engineer of 7i;al, 'inistr# of u$lic 2or%s ho acted as the surve#or of the 'angahan /looda# ro"ect accused/audio +. &rcaya, then the Ad!inistrative ?fficer * of the 7i;al (istrict Engineer&s ?ffice, 'inistr# of u$lic 2or%s ho passed upon all papers and docu!ents pertaining to private lands acquired $# the Govern!ent for the 'angahan /looda# ro"ect and accused &mado /. &rias, then the Auditor of 7i;al Engineering (istrict, asig, 'etro 'anila, ho passed upon and approved in audit the acquisition as ell as the pa#!ent of lands needed for the 'angahan /looda# ro"ect a ta,in$ 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 $ad faith, hile accused Cresencio (. (ata, riscillo G. /ernando and A!ado C. Arias, acting ith !anifest partialit# in the discharge of their official pu$lic andIor ad!inistrative functions, did then and there ilfull#, unlafull# and feloniousl# cause undue in"ur#, da!age and pre"udice to the Govern!ent of the 7epu$lic of the hilippines $# causing, alloing andIor approving the illegal and irregular dis$urse!ent and e)penditure of pu$lic funds in favor of and in the na!e of Ben"a!in . Agleha! in the a!ount of 3,8@,:@. under General oucher No. 59, supported $# a certification, dated +epte!$er 35, 349, hich as purportedl# issued $# the 'unicipal Treasurer of asig, and certified )ero) copies of Ta) (eclarations Nos. 5948 and A-3-43 3, $oth in the na!e of Ben"a!in . Agleha!, and an alleged oner&s cop# of Ta) (eclaration No. 5445, in the na!e of the 7epu$lic of the hilippines, 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 square !eter and that 34,5 square !eters thereof ere transferred in the na!e of the Govern!ent of the 7epu$lic of the hilippines under Ta) (eclaration No. 5445, hen in truth and in fact, the afore-stated land is actuall# a riceland ith a true and actual !ar%et value of 8. per square !eter onl# and Ta) (eclaration No. 5445 as trul# and officiall# registered in the n a!es of spouses 'oises Javillonar and +ofia +an Andres, not in the na!e of the Govern!ent, and refers to a parcel of land at +agad, asig, 'etro 'anila that the foregoing falsities ere co!!itted $# the accused to conceal the fact that the true and actual pace of the 34,5 square !eters of land of Ben"a!in . Agleha!, hich as acquired in $ehalf of the Govern!ent $# a# of negotiated purchase $# the accused officials herein for the right of a# of the 'angahan /looda# pro"ect at an overprice of 3,8@,:@. as 4@,@. onl# and finall#, upon receipt of the overpriced a!ount, the accused !isappropriated, converted and !isapplied the e)cess of the true and actual value of the a$ove-!entioned land, i.e., 3,5@,:. for their on p ersonal needs, uses and $enefits, to the da!age and pre"udice of the Govern!ent in the a!ount of 3,5@,:.. =pp. @4:3, 7ollo of G.7. No. 38:.> riscillo /ernando did not face trial for he has re!ained at large, his present herea$outs $eing un%non =p. 5, +andigan$a#an (ecision, p. 98, 7ollo of G.7. No. 38:>. *n 3498, the Bureau of u$lic 2or%s initiated the 'angahan /looda# ro"ect to ease the perennial floods affecting the tons of 'ari%ina and asig, 'etro 'anila. The pro"ect ould traverse the northern and southern portions of ?rtigas Avenue in asig, 'etro 'anila =E)hi$its A and A-3>. An announce!ent as pu$lished in leading nespapers advising affected propert# oners to file their applications for pa#!ent at the (istrict Engineer&s ?ffice =p. @4, +andigan$a#an (ecision, p. 8, !bid .>. The i!ple!entation of the 'angahan /looda# ro"ect as entrusted to the asig Engineering (istrict headed $# the (istrict Engineer, Cresencio (ata. 0e for!ed a co!!ittee co!posed of
+upervising Civil Engineer riscillo /ernando, as over-all in charge, Alfonso 'endo;a and edro 0uco! for acquisition of i!prove!ents, and *nstru!ent!an Carlos Jose for surve#s =p. @, +andigan$a#an (ecision, p. 8:, !bid .>. The tea! as tas%ed to notif# lot oners affected $# 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 'angahan /looda# ro"ect as suspended in 3498 $# order of the resident =p. 58, +andigan$a#an (ecision, p. 9@, !bid .>. *!ple!enting that order, a !e!orandu! as sent to (ata on August @9,349, $# u$lic 2or%s (irector (esiderio Anolin, directing that all affected lands covered $# the 'angahan /looda# ro"ect shall $e e)cluded fro! reevaluation and reassess!ent =Anne) A, E)h. ((, Counter-Affidavit of (ata, p. 9, +andigan$a#an (ecision, . 49, !bid >. A!ong the lots affected as a 34,5-square-!eter portion of a :,34-square-!eter riceland in asig registered in the na!e of Ben"a!in Agleha! under ?riginal Certificate of Title No. 49 issued on 'a# 8, 3499 =E)h. 0>. The la nd as previousl# oned $# Andrea Ara$it and Evaristo Gutierre;, parents of the accused Natividad Gutierre;. After Agleha! acquired the :-hectare land in 349: fro! the Gutierre; spouses, he had it su$divided into three =:> lots under plan =7C> sd-@958 hich as approved $# the and 7egistration Co!!ission on June 3, 349 =Entr# No. @9:44I3@93, E)h. 0>. ot 3, ith an area of 34,5 square !eters, is the portion that Agleha!, through Natividad Gutierre;, sold to the Govern!ent in 3 49 for the 'angahan /looda# ro"ect. ?n (ece!$er 38, 349:, Agleha!&s propert#, classified as a 6ricefield6 ith an area of :.@ hectares, as declared for ta)ation under Ta) (eclaration No. @@5 =E)h->. *ts assessed value as 5, or .38 per square !eter =p. 3, +andigan$a#an (ecision, p. :9, *$id.>. ?n /e$ruar# @ 9, 349, another Ta) (eclaration No. 5948 =E)h. -3> as issued for the sa!e ricefield6 ith a revised area of :,34 square !eters. The declared !ar%et value as 38,8 =or 8 per square !eter>, and the assessed value as ,:5. Ten !onths later, or on (ece!$er 38, 349, Ta) (eclaration No. 5948 as cancelled and replaced $# Ta) (eclaration No. A3- 433 =E)h. -@> herein the !ar%et value of the sa!e 6ricefield,6 "u!ped to :3,4 =3 per square !eter>. *ts assessed value as fi)ed at 3@,. The description and value of the propert#, according to edro ?col, the assistant 'unicipal Assessor of asig, as $ased on the actual use of the propert# =riceland> not on its potential use =p. 3:, +andigan$a#an (ecision, p. 5, !bid .>. The valuation as $ased on a co!pilation of sales given to the 'unicipal Assessor&s office $# the 7egister of (eeds, fro! hich transactions the Assessor o$tained the average valuation of the properties in the sa!e vicinit# =p. 35, +andigan$a#an (ecision, p. 53, !bid .>. A!ong those ho filed an application for pa#!ent =E)hs. // and //-3> at the (istrict Engineer&s ?ffice as the accused, Natividad Gutierre;, ho as ar!ed ith a +pecial oer of Attorne# allegedl# e)ecuted on /e$ruar# @5,349 $# Ben"a!in Agleha! in her favor =E)hs. C and C-3>. +he su$!itted a falsified )ero) cop# of Ta) (eclaration No. 5948 =E)h. B> $earing a false date< (ece!$er 38,349: =instead of /e$ruar# @9, 349> and descri$ing Agleha!&s :,34-square-!eter
propert# as 6residential6 =instead of riceland>, ith a fair !ar%et value of @,53:,8@ or per square !eter =instead of 38,58 at 8 per square !eter>. *ts assessed value appeared to $e 9@5,8 =instead of ,:5>. Gutierre; su$!itted Agleha!&s ?riginal Certificate of Title No. 49 =E)h. 0-3>, the technical description of the propert#, and a )ero) cop# of a 6+orn +tate!ent of the True Current and /air 'ar%et alue of 7eal ropert#6 required under .(. No. 9 =E)h. 3>. The )ero) cop# of Ta) (eclaration No. 5948 as supposedl# certified $# the 'unicipal Treasurer of asig, Alfredo rudencio. The docu!ents supporting Agleha!&s clai! ere 6e)a!ined6 $# the Ad!inistrative ?fficer, accused Claudio Arca#a, ho, after initiating the!, turned the! over to accused adislao G. Cru;, A (eed of A$solute +ale for ot 3 =34,5 square !eters valued at per square !eter> as prepared $# Cru; ho also initialed the supporting docu!ents and trans!itted the! to (istrict Engr. (ata. ?n April @,349, the (eed of A$solute +ale =E)hs. G and G-3> as signed $ # (ata and Gutierre; =as attorne#-in-fact of Agleha!>. Thereafter, (ata sent the papers to (irector (esiderio Anolin of the Bureau of u$lic 2or%s ho reco!!ended to the Assistant +ecretar# of u$lic 2or%s the approval of the (eed of +ale =E)h. G-3>. Afterards, the docu!ents ere returned to (ata&s office for the transfer of title to the Govern!ent. ?n June , 349, the sale as registered and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-3@93 =E)h. T> as issued in the na!e of the Govern!ent. General oucher =E)h. +> No. 8-@-94-8@ dated 64I@4I96 for the a!ount of 3,8@,:@ $ore fourth certifications of. =3> Cru; as +enior Civil Engineer =@> riscillo G. /ernando as +upervising Civil Engineer ** =:> Cresencio (ata as (istrict Engineer ** and =5> Cesar . /ranco as ro"ect Acting Accountant =p. 8, +andigan$a#an (ecision, p. :, *$id .>. ?n ?cto$er @:, 349, the voucher and its supporting docu!ents ere pre-audited and approved for pa#!ent $# the accused, A!ado C. Arias, as auditor of the Engineering (istrict. The ne)t da#, ?cto$er @5, 349, si)teen =3> NB chec%s ith +erial Nos. 38:@ to 3859, inclusive =E)hs. K to K-3 8>, for the total su! of l,8@,:@. ere issued to Gutierre; as pa#!ent for Agleha!&s 34,5square-!eter lot. *n ?cto$er, 3494, an investigation as conducted $# the 'inistr# of National (efense on the gross overpricing of Agleha!&s propert#. (uring the investigation, sorn state!ents ere ta%en fro! Alfredo rudencio, 'unicipal Treasurer of asig =E)h. AA>, edro ?col, Assistant 'unicipal Assessor of asig =E)h. BB>, and the accused Claudio Arca#a =E)h. EE>. rudencio denied having issued or signed the certification dated +epte!$er 35,349 =E)h. J>, attesting that Agleha!&s propert# covered $# Ta) (eclaration No. 5948 had a !ar%et value of @,53:,8@ and that the ta)es had $een paid fro! 3498 to 349. rudencio also i!pugned the initial =purporting to $e that of his su$ordinate 7u$en Gatchalian, Chief of the and Ta) (ivision> that as affi)ed $elo rudencio&s t#peritten na!e in E)hi$it J. Both rudencio and Gatchalian disoned the t#peritten certification. The# declared that such certifications are usuall# issued $# their office on !i!eographed for!s =E)h. J-3>. Assistant 'unicipal Assessor edro ?col produced and *dentified the original or genuine Ta) (eclaration No. 5948 dated /e$ruar# @9, 349, and a certified cop# thereof =E)h. -3>. Therein, Agleha!&s propert# of :,34 square !eters as classified as a 6ricefield6 and appraised at 8 per
square !eter, ith an assessed value of ,:5 and a !ar%et value of * 8,8. ?col testified that the supposed )ero) cop# of Ta) (eclaration No. 5948 =E)h. B>, hich Gutierre; su$!itted as one of the supporting docu!ents of the g eneral voucher =E)h. +>, as fa%e, $ecause of the folloing tell-tale signs< =3> the ta) declaration nu!$er as t#peritten, not !achine nu!$ered as in the genuine ta) declaration, E)hi$it =@> the sta!p!ar% of registration as antedated to (ece!$er 38, 3 49: in the fa%e, instead of the correct date /e$ruar# @9, 349-- in the genuine ta) declaration =:> the classification of the propert# as 6residential,6 instead of 6ricefield6 hich is its classification in the genuine docu!ent and =5> the lot as over priced at per square !eter in the fa%e ta) declaration, instead of the appraised value of onl# 8 per square !eter appearing in the genuine declaration. Also found to $e fa%e as Ta) (eclaration No. 5445 in the na!e of the 7epu$lic of the hilippines =E)hs. L and L-3>. The genuine Ta) (eclaration No. 5445 =E)hs. 1 and -@> as actuall# filed on ?cto$er 3, 349 in the na!es of the spouses 'oises Javillonar and +ofia Andres, for their 84square-!eters& residential propert# ith a declared !ar%et value of 83,:. The Agleha! deed of sale as pre-audited $# the auditor of the 7i;al Engineering (istrict, A!ado Arias, ho approved the pa#!ent of l,8@,:@ to Gutierre; ithout questioning the fact that the a!ount of the purchase price therein had $een altered, i.e., 6sno-fla%ed =sic> and later superi!posed $# the a!ount of 3,8@,:@ in ords and figures6 =p. 93, +andigan$a#an (ecision, p. 4, !bid .>, nor chec%ing the veracit# of the supporting docu!ents listed at the $ac% of the General oucher =E)h. +>, nu!$ering fifteen =38> in all, a!ong hich ere< =3> the fa%e Ta) (eclaration No. 5948 shoing that the value of the land as per square !eter =E)h. B> =@> fa%e Ta) (eclaration No. 5445 *n the na!e of the 7epu$lic of the hilippines =E)h. L> =:> the forged certification of 'unicipal Treasurer rudencio that the fair !ar%et value of &the land as 3 per square !eter =E)h. J> =5> a false certification =E)h. (> dated +epte!$er 34, 349 signed $# accused Cru;, Jose, and /ernando, certif#ing that the Agleha! propert# as upon ocular inspection $# the!, found to $e 6residential6 =8> a falsel# dated certification here the original date as erased and a false date =/e$ruar# 38, 349> as superi!posed =E)h.E>, issued $# Engr. /ernando pursuant to (2TC Circular No. 889, certif#ing that he had e)a!ined the real estate ta) receipts of the Agleha! propert# for the last three =:> #ears
=> the technical description of the land =E)hs. / and /-3> attached to the deed of sale dated April @, 349 as not an approved technical description for the su$division surve# e)ecuted $# Geodetic Engineer Cipriano C. Caro as verified and approved $# the and 7egistration Co!!ission on 'a# @,349 onl#. There ere 6su$stantial variations6 noted $# the +andigan$a#an $eteen the approved technical description and the technical description of the land in the deed of sale =p. 3, +andigan$a#an (ecision, p. , !bid .> =9> the special poer of attorne# dated /e$ruar# @5, 349, supposedl# given to Gutierre; $# Agleha! =E)hs. C, C-3> $ore a fictitious residence certificate Agleha! =p. 5, +andigan$a#an (ecision, p. 43, !bid .> and => the fa%e +orn +tate!ent on the Current and /air 'ar%et alue of 7eal roperties =E)h. M> dated ?cto$er 3, 349:, contained a forged signature of Agleha!, presu!a$l# !ade $# Gutierre; herself The +andigan$a#an o$served that Agleha!&s supposed signature 6appears to $e identical to accused Gutierre;& signatures in the General oucher =E)h. +>, in the release and Huitclai! hich she signed in favor of Agleha! on Jul# @, 34 : =E)h. CC>, and in her affidavits =E)hs. // and //3>.6 =pp. 5-8, +andigan$a#an (ecision, pp. 43-4@, !bid .>. After pa#!ent of the Agleha! clai!, all the supporting docu!ents ere %ept $# Arias. Even after he had $een replaced $# Julito esa#co on +epte!$er 3, 343, as auditor of the 7i;al Engineering (istrict, he did not turn over the docu!ents to esa#co. *t as onl# on June @: , 34@, after this case had $een filed in the +andigan$a#an and the trial had $egun, that Arias delivered the! to esa#co =E)h. T-3>. After a trial lasting nearl# si) #ears, the +andigan$a#an rendered a 9-page decision on Nove!$er 3, 349, hose dispositive portion reads as follos< 20E7E/?7E, "udg!ent is here$# rendered finding accused Natividad G. Gutierre;, Cresencio (. (ata, adislao G. Cru;, Carlos . Jose, Claudio 0. Arca#a and A!ado C. Arias G1*T $e#ond reasona$le dou$t of the violation of +ection :, paragraph =e> of 7epu$lic Act No. :34, as ascended, otherise %non as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt ractices Act, and here$# sentences each of the! to suffer the penalt# of i!prison!ent for T07EE =:> EA7+, as !ini!u! to +*K => EA7+, as !a)i!u! to further suffer perpetual disqualification fro! pu$lic office to inde!nif# "ointl# and severall#, the Govern!ent of the 7epu$lic of the hilippines in the a!ount of 3,5@8,:, and to pa# their proportional costs of this action. =p. 35, 7ollo of G.7. No. 38:.> Both Arias and (ata appealed. Arias anchors his petition for revie of the +andigan$a#an&s decision =G.7. No. 38:> on his contention that the court&s findings that he conspired ith his co-accused and that he as grossl# negligent are $ased on !isapprehension of facts, speculation, sur!ise, and con"ecture.
(ata&s !ain defense is that the acquisition of the Agleha! propert# as the or% of the co!!ittee of rescillo /ernando iii hich he did not ta%e an active part, and that the price hich the govern!ent paid for it as reasona$le. 0ence, it uttered no "ur# in the transaction. *n his consolidated $rief or co!!ent for the +tate, the +olicitor General reco!!ends the acquittal of the petitioners $ecause the Agleha! propert# as allegedl# not grossl# overpriced. After deli$erating on the petitions in these cases, e find no error in the decision under revie. The +andigan$a#an did not err in finding that the petitioners conspired ith their co-accused to cause in"ur# to the Govern!ent and to undul# favor the lot oner, Agleha!. A conspirac# need not $e proved $# direct evidence of the acts charged, $ut !a# and generall# !ust $e proven $# a nu!$er of indefinite acts, conditions and circu!stances =eople vs. 'aralit, G.7. No. 9335:, +ept. 34,34 eople vs. 7oca, G.7. No. 99994, June @9, 34>. This case presents a conspirac# of silence and inaction here chiefs of office ho should have $een vigilant to protect the interest of the Govern!ent in the purchase of Agleha!&s to-hectare riceland, accepted as gospel truth the certifications of their su$ordinates, and approved ithout question the !illion-peso purchase hich, $# the standards prevailing in 349-9, should have pric%ed their curiosit# and pro!pted the! to !a%e inquiries and to verif# the authenticit# of the docu!ents presented to the! for approval. The petitioners %ept silent hen the# should have as%ed questions the# loo%ed the other a# hen the# should have pro$ed deep into the transaction. +ince it as too !uch of a coincidence that $oth petitioners ere negligent at the sa!e ti!e over the sa!e transaction, the +andigan$a#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 Govern!ent. 2e cannot accept Arias& e)cuse that $ecause the deed of sale had $een signed and the propert# transferred to the Govern!ent hich received a title in its na!e, there as nothing else for hi! to do $ut approve the voucher for pa#!ent. The pri!ar# function of an auditor is to prevent irregular, unnecessar#, e)cessive or e)travagant e)penditures of govern!ent funds. The auditorial function of an auditor, as a representative of the Co!!ission on Audit, co!prises three aspects< =3> e)a!ination =@> audit< and =:> settle!ent of the accounts, funds, financial transactions and resources of the agencies under their respective audit "urisdiction =+ec. 5:, Govern!ent Auditing Code of the hil.>. E)a!ination, as applied to auditing, !eans 6to pro$e records, or inspect securities or other docu!ents revie procedures, and question persons, all for the purpose of arriving at an opinion of accurac#, propriet#, sufficienc#, and the li%e.6 =+tate Audit Code of the hilippines, Annotated $# Tantuico, 34@ Ed., p. 89.> Arias ad!itted that he did not chec% or verif# the papers supporting the general voucher that as su$!itted to hi! for pa#!ent of l,8@,:@ to Agleha! or his attorne#-in-fact, Natividad Gutierre;. Arias did not question an# person for the purpose of deter!ining the accurac# and integrit# of the docu!ents su$!itted to hi! and the reasona$leness of the price that the Govern!ent as pa#ing for the less than to-hectare riceland. 2e re"ect his casuistic e)planation that since his su$ordinates
had passed upon the transaction, he could assu!e that it as laful and regular for, if he ould $e a !ere ru$$er sta!p for his su$ordinates, his position as auditor ould $e useless and unnecessar#. 2e !a%e the sa!e o$servation concerning (istrict Engineer Cresencio (ata ho clai!s innocence $ecause he allegedl# did not ta%e an# direct and active participation in the acquisition of the Agleha! propert#, throing the $la!e on the co!!ittee hich he created, co!posed of /ernando, Asuncion, 'endo;a, Cru;, 0uco! and Jose that negotiated ith the propert# oners for the purchase of properties on the path of the 'angahan /looda# ro"ect. 0e in effect ould hide under the s%irt of the co!!ittee hich he hi!self sel ected and to hich he delegated the tas% that as assigned to his office to identif# the lots that ould $e traversed $# the flooda# pro"ect, gather and verif# docu!ents, !a%e surve#s, negotiate ith the oners 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 $e responsi$le for the i!ple!entation of the pro"ect. 1nder the principle of co!!and responsi$ilit#, he as responsi$le 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 $# the co!!ittee. B# signing the deed of sale and certifications prepared for his signature $# his co!!ittee, he in effect, !ade their acts his on. 0e is, therefore, equall# guilt# ith those !e!$ers of the co!!ittee =/ernando, 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 General has pointed out that (ata signed, $ut did not approve, the deed of sale of Agleha!&s propert# $ecause the approval thereof as the prerogative of the +ecretar# of u$lic 2or%s. *t should not $e overloo%ed, hoever, that (ata&s signature on the deed of sale as equivalent to an attestation that the transaction as fair, honest and legal. *t as h e ho as charged ith the tas% of i!ple!enting the 'angahan /looda# ro"ect ithin his engineering district. 2e find no !erit in the +olicitor General&s argu!ent that the Agleha! riceland as not overpriced $ecause the price of per square !eter fi)ed in the deed of sale as reasona$le, hence, the petitioners are not guilt# of having caused undue in"ur# and pre"udice to the Govern!ent, nor of having given unarranted $enefits to the propert# oner andIor his attorne#-in-fact, Gutierre;. 0e further argues that the valuation in the oner&s genuine ta) declaration !a# not $e used as a standard in deter!ining the fair !ar%et value of the propert# $ecause ( Nos. 9 an d 55 =!a%ing it !andator# in e)propriation cases to fi) the price at the value of the propert# as declared $# the oner, or as deter!ined $# the assessor, hichever is loer>, ere declared null and void $# this Court in the case of "#port Processin$ %one &uthority 7"P%& vs. 'uay , 354 +C7A :8, and other related cases. That argu!ent is not ell ta%en $ecause ( Nos. 9 and 55 =$efore the# ere nullified> applied to the e)propriation of propert# for pu$lic use. The acquisition of Agleha!&s riceland as not done $# e)propriation $ut through a negotiated sale. *n the course of the negotiations, there as a$solutel# no ae$ation nor proof that the price of per square !eter as its fair !ar%et value in 349, i.e., eleven =33> #ears ago. 2hat the accused did as to prove the value of the land through fa%e ta) declarations =E)hs. B, /, L>, false certifications =E)hs. J, ( and E> and a forged sorn state!ent on the current and fair !ar%et value of the real propert# =E)h. M> su$!itted $# the accused in support of the deed of sale. Because fraudulent docu!ents ere used, it !a# not $e said
that the +tate agreed to pa# the price on the $asis of its fairness, for the Govern!ent as in fact deceived concerning the reasona$le value of the land. 2hen ?col testified in 958: that as a reasona$le valuation for the Agleha!&s land, he did not clarif# that as also its reasona$le value in 3498, $efore real estate values in asig soared as a result of the i!ple!entation of the 'angahan /l ooda# ro"ect. 0ence, ?col&s testi!on# as insufficient to re$ut the valuation in Agleha!&s genuine 349 Ta) (eclaration No. 5948 that the fair valuation of the riceland then as onl# 8 per square !eter. A Ta) (eclaration is a guide or indicator of the reasona$le value of the propert# =EMA vs. (ula#, supra>. The petitioner&s partialit# for Agleha!IGutierre; !a# $e inferred fro! their having deli$eratel# closed their e#es to the defects and irregularities of the transaction in his favor and their see!ing neglect, if not deli$erate 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 a$sence of direct evidence, it !a# $e proved $# the attendant circu!stance instances. 20E7E/?7E, * vote to affir! in toto the decision of the +andigan$a#an in +B Cri!. Case No. @3, 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*A+INO, J., dissenting< The lone issue in these consolidated petitions for revie is hether the +andigan$a#an co!!itted a reversi$le error in convicting the petitioners, A!ado C. Arias and Cresencio (. (ata, of having violated +ection :, paragraph =e>, of the Anti Graft and Corrupt ractices Act, in connection ith the scandalous overpricing of land purchased $# the Govern!ent as right of a# for its 'angahan /looda# ro"ect in asig, 7i;al. The pertinent provision of the Anti-Graft a reads as follos< +EC. :. Corrupt ractices of u$lic ?fficers-*n addition to acts or o!issions of pu$lic officers alread# penali;ed $# e)isting la. the folloing shall constitute corrupt practices of an# pu$lic officer and are h ere$# declared to $e unlaful< ))))))))) =e> Causing an# undue in"ur# to an# part#, including the Govern!ent, or giving an# private part# an# unarranted $enefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official ad!inistrative or "udicial functions through !anifest partialit#, evident $ad faith or gross ine)cusa$le 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 a$out the period covering April, 349 to ?cto$er 349, in 7osario, asig, 'etro 'anila, hilippines, and ith the " urisdiction of this 0onora$le Court, accused /resencio '. 'ata, $eing then the district Engineer of the province of 7i;al, 'inistr# of u$lic 2or%s, and as such, headed and supervised the acquisition of private lands for the right-of-a# of the 'angahan /looda# ro"ect of the Govern!ent at +itio 'angahan, 7osario, asig, 'etro 'anila accused Priscio G. ernando, then the +upervising Engineer of the ?ffice of the (istrict Engineer of 7i;al, 'inistr# of u$lic 2or%s ho acted as assistant of accused Cresencio (. (ata in the 'angahan /looda# ro"ect accusedLadisao G. /ru- , then the +enior Engineer of the ?ffice of the (istrict Engineer of 7i;al, 'inistr# of u$lic 2or%s, ho as charged ith the acquisition of lots needed for the 'angahan /lo oda# ro"ect accused /aros L. ose then the *nstru!ent!an of the office of the (istrict Engineer of 7i;al, 'inistr# of u$lic 2or%s ho acted as the surve#or of the 'angahan /looda# ro"ect accused/audio +. &rcaya, then the Ad!inistrative ?fficer * of the 7i;al (istrict Engineer&s ?ffice, 'inistr# of u$lic 2or%s ho passed upon all papers and docu!ents pertaining to private lands acquired $# the Govern!ent for the 'angahan /looda# ro"ect and accused &mado /. &rias, then the Auditor of 7i;al Engineering (istrict, asig, 'etro 'anila, ho passed upon and approved in audit the acquisition as ell as the pa#!ent of lands needed for the 'angahan /looda# ro"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 $ad faith, hile accused Cresencio (. (ata, riscillo G. /ernando and A!ado C. Arias, acting ith !anifest partialit# in the discharge of their official pu$lic andIor ad!inistrative functions, did then and there ilfull#, unlafull# and feloniousl# cause undue in"ur#, da!age and pre"udice to the Govern!ent of the 7epu$lic of the hilippines $# causing, alloing andIor approving the illegal and irregular dis$urse!ent and e)penditure of pu$lic funds in favor of and in the na!e of Ben"a!in . Agleha! in the a!ount of 3,8@,:@. under General oucher No. 59, supported $# a certification, dated +epte!$er 35, 349, hich as purportedl# issued $# the 'unicipal Treasurer of asig, and certified )ero) copies of Ta) (eclarations Nos. 5948 and A-3-43 3, $oth in the na!e of Ben"a!in . Agleha!, and an alleged oner&s cop# of Ta) (eclaration No. 5445, in the na!e of the 7epu$lic of the hilippines, 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 square !eter and that 34,5 square !eters thereof ere transferred in the na!e of the Govern!ent of the 7epu$lic of the hilippines under Ta) (eclaration No. 5445, hen in truth and in fact, the afore-stated land is actuall# a riceland ith a true and actual !ar%et value of 8. per square !eter onl# and Ta) (eclaration No. 5445 as trul# and officiall# registered in the n a!es of spouses 'oises Javillonar and +ofia +an Andres, not in the na!e of the Govern!ent, and refers to a parcel of land
at +agad, asig, 'etro 'anila that the foregoing falsities ere co!!itted $# the accused to conceal the fact that the true and actual pace of the 34,5 square !eters of land of Ben"a!in . Agleha!, hich as acquired in $ehalf of the Govern!ent $# a# of negotiated purchase $# the accused officials herein for the right of a# of the 'angahan /looda# pro"ect at an overprice of 3,8@,:@. as 4@,@. 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 a$ove-!entioned land, i.e., 3,5@,:. for their on p ersonal needs, uses and $enefits, to the da!age and pre"udice of the Govern!ent in the a!ount of 3,5@,:.. =pp. @4:3, 7ollo of G.7. No. 38:.> riscillo /ernando did not face trial for he has re!ained at large, his present herea$outs $eing un%non =p. 5, +andigan$a#an (ecision, p. 98, 7ollo of G.7. No. 38:>. *n 3498, the Bureau of u$lic 2or%s initiated the 'angahan /looda# ro"ect to ease the perennial floods affecting the tons of 'ari%ina and asig, 'etro 'anila. The pro"ect ould traverse the northern and southern portions of ?rtigas Avenue in asig, 'etro 'anila =E)hi$its A and A-3>. An announce!ent as pu$lished in leading nespapers advising affected propert# oners to file their applications for pa#!ent at the (istrict Engineer&s ?ffice =p. @4, +andigan$a#an (ecision, p. 8, !bid .>. The i!ple!entation of the 'angahan /looda# ro"ect as entrusted to the asig Engineering (istrict headed $# the (istrict Engineer, Cresencio (ata. 0e for!ed a co!!ittee co!posed of +upervising Civil Engineer riscillo /ernando, as over-all in charge, Alfonso 'endo;a and edro 0uco! for acquisition of i!prove!ents, and *nstru!ent!an Carlos Jose for surve#s =p. @, +andigan$a#an (ecision, p. 8:, !bid .>. The tea! as tas%ed to notif# lot oners affected $# 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 'angahan /looda# ro"ect as suspended in 3498 $# order of the resident =p. 58, +andigan$a#an (ecision, p. 9@, !bid .>. *!ple!enting that order, a !e!orandu! as sent to (ata on August @9,349, $# u$lic 2or%s (irector (esiderio Anolin, directing that all affected lands covered $# the 'angahan /looda# ro"ect shall $e e)cluded fro! reevaluation and reassess!ent =Anne) A, E)h. ((, Counter-Affidavit of (ata, p. 9, +andigan$a#an (ecision, . 49, !bid >. A!ong the lots affected as a 34,5-square-!eter portion of a :,34-square-!eter riceland in asig registered in the na!e of Ben"a!in Agleha! under ?riginal Certificate of Title No. 49 issued on 'a# 8, 3499 =E)h. 0>. The la nd as previousl# oned $# Andrea Ara$it and Evaristo Gutierre;, parents of the accused Natividad Gutierre;. After Agleha! acquired the :-hectare land in 349: fro! the Gutierre; spouses, he had it su$divided into three =:> lots under plan =7C> sd-@958 hich as approved $# the and 7egistration Co!!ission on June 3, 349 =Entr# No. @9:44I3@93, E)h. 0>. ot 3, ith an area of 34,5 square !eters, is the portion that Agleha!, through Natividad Gutierre;, sold to the Govern!ent in 3 49 for the 'angahan /looda# ro"ect.
?n (ece!$er 38, 349:, Agleha!&s propert#, classified as a 6ricefield6 ith an area of :.@ hectares, as declared for ta)ation under Ta) (eclaration No. @@5 =E)h->. *ts assessed value as 5, or .38 per square !eter =p. 3, +andigan$a#an (ecision, p. :9, *$id.>. ?n /e$ruar# @ 9, 349, another Ta) (eclaration No. 5948 =E)h. -3> as issued for the sa!e ricefield6 ith a revised area of :,34 square !eters. The declared !ar%et value as 38,8 =or 8 per square !eter>, and the assessed value as ,:5. Ten !onths later, or on (ece!$er 38, 349, Ta) (eclaration No. 5948 as cancelled and replaced $# Ta) (eclaration No. A3- 433 =E)h. -@> herein the !ar%et value of the sa!e 6ricefield,6 "u!ped to :3,4 =3 per square !eter>. *ts assessed value as fi)ed at 3@,. The description and value of the propert#, according to edro ?col, the assistant 'unicipal Assessor of asig, as $ased on the actual use of the propert# =riceland> not on its potential use =p. 3:, +andigan$a#an (ecision, p. 5, !bid .>. The valuation as $ased on a co!pilation of sales given to the 'unicipal Assessor&s office $# the 7egister of (eeds, fro! hich transactions the Assessor o$tained the average valuation of the properties in the sa!e vicinit# =p. 35, +andigan$a#an (ecision, p. 53, !bid .>. A!ong those ho filed an application for pa#!ent =E)hs. // and //-3> at the (istrict Engineer&s ?ffice as the accused, Natividad Gutierre;, ho as ar!ed ith a +pecial oer of Attorne# allegedl# e)ecuted on /e$ruar# @5,349 $# Ben"a!in Agleha! in her favor =E)hs. C and C-3>. +he su$!itted a falsified )ero) cop# of Ta) (eclaration No. 5948 =E)h. B> $earing a false date< (ece!$er 38,349: =instead of /e$ruar# @9, 349> and descri$ing Agleha!&s :,34-square-!eter propert# as 6residential6 =instead of riceland>, ith a fair !ar%et value of @,53:,8@ or per square !eter =instead of 38,58 at 8 per square !eter>. *ts assessed value appeared to $e 9@5,8 =instead of ,:5>. Gutierre; su$!itted Agleha!&s ?riginal Certificate of Title No. 49 =E)h. 0-3>, the technical description of the propert#, and a )ero) cop# of a 6+orn +tate!ent of the True Current and /air 'ar%et alue of 7eal ropert#6 required under .(. No. 9 =E)h. 3>. The )ero) cop# of Ta) (eclaration No. 5948 as supposedl# certified $# the 'unicipal Treasurer of asig, Alfredo rudencio. The docu!ents supporting Agleha!&s clai! ere 6e)a!ined6 $# the Ad!inistrative ?fficer, accused Claudio Arca#a, ho, after initiating the!, turned the! over to accused adislao G. Cru;, A (eed of A$solute +ale for ot 3 =34,5 square !eters valued at per square !eter> as prepared $# Cru; ho also initialed the supporting docu!ents and trans!itted the! to (istrict Engr. (ata. ?n April @,349, the (eed of A$solute +ale =E)hs. G and G-3> as signed $ # (ata and Gutierre; =as attorne#-in-fact of Agleha!>. Thereafter, (ata sent the papers to (irector (esiderio Anolin of the Bureau of u$lic 2or%s ho reco!!ended to the Assistant +ecretar# of u$lic 2or%s the approval of the (eed of +ale =E)h. G-3>. Afterards, the docu!ents ere returned to (ata&s office for the transfer of title to the Govern!ent. ?n June , 349, the sale as registered and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-3@93 =E)h. T> as issued in the na!e of the Govern!ent. General oucher =E)h. +> No. 8-@-94-8@ dated 64I@4I96 for the a!ount of 3,8@,:@ $ore fourth certifications of. =3> Cru; as +enior Civil Engineer =@> riscillo G. /ernando as +upervising Civil Engineer ** =:> Cresencio (ata as (istrict Engineer ** and =5> Cesar . /ranco as ro"ect Acting Accountant =p. 8, +andigan$a#an (ecision, p. :, *$id .>.
?n ?cto$er @:, 349, the voucher and its supporting docu!ents ere pre-audited and approved for pa#!ent $# the accused, A!ado C. Arias, as auditor of the Engineering (istrict. The ne)t da#, ?cto$er @5, 349, si)teen =3> NB chec%s ith +erial Nos. 38:@ to 3859, inclusive =E)hs. K to K-3 8>, for the total su! of l,8@,:@. ere issued to Gutierre; as pa#!ent for Agleha!&s 34,5square-!eter lot. *n ?cto$er, 3494, an investigation as conducted $# the 'inistr# of National (efense on the gross overpricing of Agleha!&s propert#. (uring the investigation, sorn state!ents ere ta%en fro! Alfredo rudencio, 'unicipal Treasurer of asig =E)h. AA>, edro ?col, Assistant 'unicipal Assessor of asig =E)h. BB>, and the accused Claudio Arca#a =E)h. EE>. rudencio denied having issued or signed the certification dated +epte!$er 35,349 =E)h. J>, attesting that Agleha!&s propert# covered $# Ta) (eclaration No. 5948 had a !ar%et value of @,53:,8@ and that the ta)es had $een paid fro! 3498 to 349. rudencio also i!pugned the initial =purporting to $e that of his su$ordinate 7u$en Gatchalian, Chief of the and Ta) (ivision> that as affi)ed $elo rudencio&s t#peritten na!e in E)hi$it J. Both rudencio and Gatchalian disoned the t#peritten certification. The# declared that such certifications are usuall# issued $# their office on !i!eographed for!s =E)h. J-3>. Assistant 'unicipal Assessor edro ?col produced and *dentified the original or genuine Ta) (eclaration No. 5948 dated /e$ruar# @9, 349, and a certified cop# thereof =E)h. -3>. Therein, Agleha!&s propert# of :,34 square !eters as classified as a 6ricefield6 and appraised at 8 per square !eter, ith an assessed value of ,:5 and a !ar%et value of * 8,8. ?col testified that the supposed )ero) cop# of Ta) (eclaration No. 5948 =E)h. B>, hich Gutierre; su$!itted as one of the supporting docu!ents of the g eneral voucher =E)h. +>, as fa%e, $ecause of the folloing tell-tale signs< =3> the ta) declaration nu!$er as t#peritten, not !achine nu!$ered as in the genuine ta) declaration, E)hi$it =@> the sta!p!ar% of registration as antedated to (ece!$er 38, 3 49: in the fa%e, instead of the correct date /e$ruar# @9, 349-- in the genuine ta) declaration =:> the classification of the propert# as 6residential,6 instead of 6ricefield6 hich is its classification in the genuine docu!ent and =5> the lot as over priced at per square !eter in the fa%e ta) declaration, instead of the appraised value of onl# 8 per square !eter appearing in the genuine declaration. Also found to $e fa%e as Ta) (eclaration No. 5445 in the na!e of the 7epu$lic of the hilippines =E)hs. L and L-3>. The genuine Ta) (eclaration No. 5445 =E)hs. 1 and -@> as actuall# filed on ?cto$er 3, 349 in the na!es of the spouses 'oises Javillonar and +ofia Andres, for their 84square-!eters& residential propert# ith a declared !ar%et value of 83,:. The Agleha! deed of sale as pre-audited $# the auditor of the 7i;al Engineering (istrict, A!ado Arias, ho approved the pa#!ent of l,8@,:@ to Gutierre; ithout questioning the fact that the a!ount of the purchase price therein had $een altered, i.e., 6sno-fla%ed =sic> and later
superi!posed $# the a!ount of 3,8@,:@ in ords and figures6 =p. 93, +andigan$a#an (ecision, p. 4, !bid .>, nor chec%ing the veracit# of the supporting docu!ents listed at the $ac% of the General oucher =E)h. +>, nu!$ering fifteen =38> in all, a!ong hich ere< =3> the fa%e Ta) (eclaration No. 5948 shoing that the value of the land as per square !eter =E)h. B> =@> fa%e Ta) (eclaration No. 5445 *n the na!e of the 7epu$lic of the hilippines =E)h. L> =:> the forged certification of 'unicipal Treasurer rudencio that the fair !ar%et value of &the land as 3 per square !eter =E)h. J> =5> a false certification =E)h. (> dated +epte!$er 34, 349 signed $# accused Cru;, Jose, and /ernando, certif#ing that the Agleha! propert# as upon ocular inspection $# the!, found to $e 6residential6 =8> a falsel# dated certification here the original date as erased and a false date =/e$ruar# 38, 349> as superi!posed =E)h.E>, issued $# Engr. /ernando pursuant to (2TC 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. / and /-3> attached to the deed of sale dated April @, 349 as not an approved technical description for the su$division surve# e)ecuted $# Geodetic Engineer Cipriano C. Caro as verified and approved $# the and 7egistration Co!!ission on 'a# @,349 onl#. There ere 6su$stantial variations6 noted $# the +andigan$a#an $eteen the approved technical description and the technical description of the land in the deed of sale =p. 3, +andigan$a#an (ecision, p. , !bid .> =9> the special poer of attorne# dated /e$ruar# @5, 349, supposedl# given to Gutierre; $# Agleha! =E)hs. C, C-3> $ore a fictitious residence certificate Agleha! =p. 5, +andigan$a#an (ecision, p. 43, !bid .> and => the fa%e +orn +tate!ent on the Current and /air 'ar%et alue of 7eal roperties =E)h. M> dated ?cto$er 3, 349:, contained a forged signature of Agleha!, presu!a$l# !ade $# Gutierre; herself The +andigan$a#an o$served that Agleha!&s supposed signature 6appears to $e *dentical to accused Gutierre;& signatures in the General oucher =E)h. +>, in the release and Huitclai! hich she signed in favor of Agleha! on Jul# @, 34 : =E)h. CC>, and in her affidavits =E)hs. // and //3>.6 =pp. 5-8, +andigan$a#an (ecision, pp. 43-4@, !bid .>. After pa#!ent of the Agleha! clai!, all the supporting docu!ents ere %ept $# Arias. Even after he had $een replaced $# Julito esa#co on +epte!$er 3, 343, as auditor of the 7i;al Engineering (istrict, he did not turn over the docu!ents to esa#co. *t as onl# on June @: , 34@, after this case had $een filed in the +andigan$a#an and the trial had $egun, that Arias delivered the! to esa#co =E)h. T-3>.
After a trial lasting nearl# si) #ears, the +andigan$a#an rendered a 9-page decision on Nove!$er 3, 349, hose dispositive portion reads as follos< 20E7E/?7E, "udg!ent is here$# rendered finding accused Natividad G. Gutierre;, Cresencio (. (ata, adislao G. Cru;, Carlos . Jose, Claudio 0. Arca#a and A!ado C. Arias G1*T $e#ond reasona$le dou$t of the violation of +ection :, paragraph =e> of 7epu$lic Act No. :34, as ascended, otherise %non as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt ractices Act, and here$# sentences each of the! to suffer the penalt# of i!prison!ent for T07EE =:> EA7+, as !ini!u! to +*K => EA7+, as !a)i!u! to further suffer perpetual disqualification fro! pu$lic office to inde!nif# "ointl# and severall#, the Govern!ent of the 7epu$lic of the hilippines in the a!ount of 3,5@8,:, and to pa# their proportional costs of this action. =p. 35, 7ollo of G.7. No. 38:.> Both Arias and (ata appealed. Arias anchors his petition for revie of the +andigan$a#an&s decision =G.7. No. 38:> on his contention that the court&s findings that he conspired ith his co-accused and that he as grossl# negligent are $ased on !isapprehension of facts, speculation, sur!ise, and con"ecture. (ata&s !ain defense is that the acquisition of the Agleha! propert# as the or% of the co!!ittee of rescillo /ernando iii hich he did not ta%e an active part, and that the price hich the govern!ent paid for it as reasona$le. 0ence, it uttered no "ur# in the transaction. *n his consolidated $rief or co!!ent for the +tate, the +olicitor General reco!!ends the acquittal of the petitioners $ecause the Agleha! propert# as allegedl# not grossl# overpriced. After deli$erating on the petitions in these cases, e find no error in the decision under revie. The +andigan$a#an did not err in finding that the petitioners conspired ith their co-accused to cause in"ur# to the Govern!ent and to undul# favor the lot oner, Agleha!. A conspirac# need not $e proved $# direct evidence of the acts charged, $ut !a# and generall# !ust $e proven $# a nu!$er of indefinite acts, conditions and circu!stances =eople vs. 'aralit, G.7. No. 9335:, +ept. 34,34 eople vs. 7oca, G.7. No. 99994, June @9, 34>. This case presents a conspirac# of silence and inaction here chiefs of office ho should have $een vigilant to protect the interest of the Govern!ent in the purchase of Agleha!&s to-hectare riceland, accepted as gospel truth the certifications of their su$ordinates, and approved ithout question the !illion-peso purchase hich, $# the standards prevailing in 349-9, should have pric%ed their curiosit# and pro!pted the! to !a%e inquiries and to verif# the authenticit# of the docu!ents presented to the! for approval. The petitioners %ept silent hen the# should have as%ed questions the# loo%ed the other a# hen the# should have pro$ed deep into the transaction. +ince it as too !uch of a coincidence that $oth petitioners ere negligent at the sa!e ti!e over the sa!e transaction, the +andigan$a#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 Govern!ent. 2e cannot accept Arias& e)cuse that $ecause the deed of sale had $een signed and the propert# transferred to the Govern!ent hich received a title in its na!e, there as nothing else for hi! to do $ut 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< =3> e)a!ination =@> audit< and =:> settle!ent of the accounts, funds, financial transactions and resources of the agencies under their respective audit "urisdiction =+ec. 5:, Govern!ent Auditing Code of the hil.>. E)a!ination, as applied to auditing, !eans 6to pro$e records, or inspect securities or other docu!ents revie procedures, and question persons, all for the purpose of arriving at an opinion of accurac#, propriet#, sufficienc#, and the li%e.6 =+tate Audit Code of the hilippines, Annotated $# Tantuico, 34@ Ed., p. 89.> Arias ad!itted that he did not chec% or verif# the papers supporting the general voucher that as su$!itted to hi! for pa#!ent of l,8@,:@ to Agleha! or his attorne#-in-fact, Natividad Gutierre;. Arias did not question an# person for the purpose of deter!ining the accurac# and integrit# of the docu!ents su$!itted to hi! and the reasona$leness of the price that the Govern!ent as pa#ing for the less than to-hectare riceland. 2e re"ect his casuistic e)planation that since his su$ordinates had passed upon the transaction, he could assu!e that it as laful and regular for, if he ould $e a !ere ru$$er sta!p for his su$ordinates, his position as auditor ould $e useless and unnecessar#. 2e !a%e the sa!e o$servation concerning (istrict Engineer Cresencio (ata ho clai!s innocence $ecause he allegedl# did not ta%e an# direct and active participation in the acquisition of the Agleha! propert#, throing the $la!e on the co!!ittee hich he created, co!posed of /ernando, Asuncion, 'endo;a, Cru;, 0uco! and Jose that negotiated ith the propert# oners for the purchase of properties on the path of the 'angahan /looda# ro"ect. 0e in effect ould hide under the s%irt of the co!!ittee hich he hi!self sel ected and to hich he delegated the tas% that as assigned to his office to *dentif# the lots that ould $e traversed $# the flooda# pro"ect, gather a nd verif# docu!ents, !a%e surve#s, negotiate ith the oners 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 $e responsi$le for the i!ple!entation of the pro"ect. 1nder the principle of co!!and responsi$ilit#, he as responsi$le 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 $# the co!!ittee. B# signing the deed of sale and certifications prepared for his signature $# his co!!ittee, he in effect, !ade their acts his on. 0e is, therefore, equall# guilt# ith those !e!$ers of the co!!ittee =/ernando, 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 General has pointed out that (ata signed, $ut did not approve, the deed of sale of Agleha!&s propert# $ecause the approval thereof as the prerogative of the +ecretar# of u$lic 2or%s. *t should not $e overloo%ed, hoever, that (ata&s signature on the deed of sale as equivalent to an attestation that the transaction as fair, honest and legal. *t as h e ho as charged ith the tas% of i!ple!enting the 'angahan /looda# ro"ect ithin his engineering district.
2e find no !erit in the +olicitor General&s argu!ent that the Agleha! riceland as not overpriced $ecause the price of per square !eter fi)ed in the deed of sale as reasona$le, hence, the petitioners are not guilt# of having caused undue in"ur# and pre"udice to the Govern!ent, nor of having given unarranted $enefits to the propert# oner andIor his attorne#-in-fact, Gutierre;. 0e further argues that the valuation in the oner&s genuine ta) declaration !a# not $e used as a standard in deter!ining the fair !ar%et value of the propert# $ecause ( Nos. 9 an d 55 =!a%ing it !andator# in e)propriation cases to fi) the price at the value of the propert# as declared $# the oner, or as deter!ined $# the assessor, hichever is loer>, ere declared null and void $# this Court in the case of "#port Processin$ %one &uthority 7"P%& vs. 'uay , 354 +C7A :8, and other related cases. That argu!ent is not ell ta%en $ecause ( Nos. 9 and 55 =$efore the# ere nullified> applied to the e)propriation of propert# for pu$lic use. The acquisition of Agleha!&s riceland as not done $# e)propriation $ut through a negotiated sale. *n the course of the negotiations, there as a$solutel# no ae$ation nor proof that the price of per square !eter as its fair !ar%et value in 349, i.e., eleven =33> #ears ago. 2hat the accused did as to prove the value of the land through fa%e ta) declarations =E)hs. B, /, L>, false certifications =E)hs. J, ( and E> and a forged sorn state!ent on the current and fair !ar%et value of the real propert# =E)h. M> su$!itted $# the accused in support of the deed of sale. Because fraudulent docu!ents ere used, it !a# not $e said that the +tate agreed to pa# the price on the $asis of its fairness, for the Govern!ent as in fact deceived concerning the reasona$le value of the land. 2hen ?col testified in 958: that as a reasona$le valuation for the Agleha!&s land, he did not clarif# that as also its reasona$le value in 3498, $efore real estate values in asig soared as a result of the i!ple!entation of the 'angahan /l ooda# ro"ect. 0ence, ?col&s testi!on# as insufficient to re$ut the valuation in Agleha!&s genuine 349 Ta) (eclaration No. 5948 that the fair valuation of the riceland then as onl# 8 per square !eter. A Ta) (eclaration is a guide or indicator of the reasona$le value of the propert# =EMA vs. (ula#, supra>. The petitioner&s partialit# for Agleha!IGutierre; !a# $e inferred fro! their having deli$eratel# closed their e#es to the defects and irregularities of the transaction in his favor and their see!ing neglect, if not deli$erate o!ission, to chec%, the authenticit# of the docu!ents presented to the! for approval. +ince partialit# is a !ental state or predilection, in the a$sence of direct evidence, it !a# $e proved $# the attendant circu!stance instances. 20E7E/?7E, * vote to affir! in toto the decision of the +andigan$a#an in +B Cri!. Case No. @3, ith costs against the petitioners, A!ado Arias and Cresencio (ata. eiciano* Padia* ;armiento and 4e$aado* .* concur.
