republic of the philippines...

M NG

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SandiganbayanQUEZON CITY

SEVENTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff,

Crim. Case Nos. 25122 and 25135

-versus-

JOSE RAMISCAL, JR.,WILFREDO PABALAN, NILOFLAVIANO and ALEX

GUAYBAR,Accused.

X - X


Crim. Case No. 25123 and 25134

-versus-

JOSE RAMISCAL, JR.,WILFREDO PABALAN, NILOFLAVIANO and JACK GUIWAN,

Accused.

X X



-versus-

JOSE RAMISCAL, JR.,WILFREDO PABALAN, NILOFLAVIANO and MAD

GUAYBAR,Accused.

X - X

People V. Jose Ramlscal, Jr., et al.Criminal Case Nos. 25122 to 25145

DECISION

2 I P a g e


Grim. Case Nos. 25125 and 25137

-versus-

JOSE RAMISCAL, JR.,WILFREDO PABALAN, NILOFLAVIANO and OLIVER

GUAYBAR,Accused.

X X



-versus-

JOSE RAMISCAL, JR.,WILFREDO PABALAN, NILOFLAVIANO and JONATHAN

GUAYBAR,Accused.

X X



-versus-

JOSE RAMISCAL, JR.,

WILFREDO PABALAN, NILOFLAVIANO and MIGUELA

CABI-AO,Accused.

X X



-versus-

JOSE RAMISCAL, JR.,

WILFREDO PABALAN, NILOFLAVIANO and JOSE ROMMEL

SALUDAR,Accused.

X -X

//

People V. Jose Ramiscal, Jr., et al.Criminal Case Nos. 25122 to 25145

DECISION

3 I P a g e

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Grim. Case Nos. 25129 and 25142Plaintiff,

-versus-

JOSE RAMISCAL, JR.,

WILFREDO PABALAN, NILO

FLAVIANO and JOEL TEVES,Accused.

X X



-versus-

JOSE RAMISCAL, JR.,

WILFREDO PABALAN, NILO

FLAVIANO and RICO ALTIZO,Accused.

X X



-versus-

JOSE RAMISCAL, JR.,WILFREDO PABALAN, NILOFLAVIANO and MARTIN

SAYCON,Accused.

X --X



-versus-

JOSE RAMISCAL, JR.,WILFREDO PABALAN, NILOFLAVIANO and JOBDVNY

MEDILLO,Accused.

X X

%

V


DECISION

4 I P a g e

PEOPLE OF THE PHH^IPPINES,Plaintiff,

-versus-

JOSE RAMISCAL, JR.,WBLFREDO PABALAN, NBLOFLAVIANO and JOLITO

PORALAN,Accused.


Present:

Gomez-Estoesta, J., ChairpersonTrespeses, J., andJacinto, J.*

Promulgated:

X

DECISION

GOMEZ-ESTOESTA, J.:

The controversy of these charges center on Lots X-1 to X-5 and X-8 toX-14 forming part of a municipal reservation of what is now known as theMagsaysay Park located in Barrio Dadiangas, Municipality [now City] ofGeneral Santos, Province of Cotabato. At the helm is accused Retired Brig.Gen. Jose S. Ramiscal, Jr., then President of the Aimed Forces of thePhilippines-Retirement and Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS), whowas charged with having caused the acquisition of subject lots for thedevelopment of a housing project and a marina complex through a bilateralDeed of Absolute Sale* and two (2) Agreements^ when it would appear thatanother set of unilateral deeds of sale existed which provided for a lowerconsideration thus resulting in the lower payment of capital gains tax to theprejudice of the government.

The factual backdrop of these cases has been several times replicatedin decisions of the Supreme Court^ as a result of several petitions filed byaccused Brig. Gen. Jose S. Ramiscal, Jr. Foremost of these is Ramiscal, Jr.V. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), et al^ where, for purposes ofillumination, relevant portions of its "The Antecedents" shall be Weighted,thus:

' Per Administrative Order No. 284-2017 dated August 18,2017 //•7^ Exhibits "F-14" to "F-17" for Lots X-1 to X-5

2 Exhibits "BB" and "HH"

^ Vide: Ramiscal, Jr. v Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), et ai., 6.R. No. 140576-99, December 13, 2004;Ramiscal, Jr., v. Sandiganbayan, etai., G.R. No. 172476-99, September 15,2010; Ramiscal, Jr., v. Hon. JoseR. Hernandez as Justice of the Sandiganbayan, 4^ Division, et al., G.R. No. 173057-74, September 20,2010;Atty. Emeiita H. Garayblas, et ai. v. The Hon. Gregory Ong, et ai., G.R. No. 174507-30, August 3,2011^ G.R. No. 140576-99, December 13, 2004

People V. Jose Ramiscal, Jr., et al. 5 | P a g eCriminal Case Nos. 25122 to 25145

DECISION

On December 18, 1997, Luwalhati R. Antonino, then a member of theHouse of Representatives representing the First District of the Province ofSouth Cotabato, filed a Complaint-Affidavit with the Office of theOmbudsman for Mindanao. She alleged that anomalous real estatetransactions involving the Magsaysay Park at General Santos City andquestionable payments of transfer taxes prejudicial to the government hadbeen entertained into between certain parties. She then requested theOmbudsman to investigate the petitioner [accused herein]. Retired Brig. Gen.Jose S. Ramiscal, Jr., then President of the AFP-RSBS, together with twenty-seven (27) other persons, for conspiracy in misappropriating AFP-RSBSfimds and in defi*auding the government millions of pesos in capital gains anddocumentary stamp taxes.^

On January 28, 1999, after the requisite preliminary investigation.Special Prosecutor Joy C. Rubillar-Arao filed twenty-four (24) separateInformations with the Sandiganbayan [eventually raffled to the FourthDivision] against the petitioner and several other accused, x x x. The firsttwelve (12) Informations were for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Grafl and Corrupt Practices Act, docketedas Criminal Cases Nos. 25122 to 25133. x x x. On the other hand, twelve(12) other separate Informations indicted the accused for Falsification ofPublic Documents, defined and penalized under paragraph 4, Article 171 ofthe Revised Penal Code, docketed therein as Criminal Cases Nos. 25134 to25145.^

Save for the dates of the Deeds of Absolute Sale, the names of the

sellers, who are also accused of the same offenses, and the propertiesinvolved, the Informations uniformly read:

Violation ofSec, 3(e) ofR,A, 3019 (Crinu Case No, 25122)

That sometime on September 24. 1997. and prior, or subsequentthereto, in General Santos City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction ofthis Honorable Court, accused JOSE RAMISCAL, JR., a high rankingpublic official being then the President, and WILFREDO PABALAN, a lowranking public officer being the Project Director, both of the AFP-RSBS,while in the performance of their official duties, taking advantage of theirofficial positions and committing the offense in relation to their offices,conspiring together and confederating with accused NILO FLA VIANG andALEX GUAYBAR. both private individuals, did, there and then, willfully,unlawfully and criminally execute and/or cause the execution of a falsifiedDeed of Sale covering Lot-X-4. a real property located at General SantosCity, by making it appear therein that Ae purchase price of the said lot isonly TWO MILLION NINE HUNDRED NINETY-SEVEN THOUSAND(P2,997,000.00) PESOS at P3,000.00 per square meter, when in truth andin fact, as all the accused very well knew and, in fact, agreed, that the samewas sold for PI0,500.00 per square meter or a total of TEN MILLION

^ supra^ supra


DECISION

6 I P a g e

FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY-NINE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED

(PI0,489,500.00) PESOS, and use the said falsified Deed of Sale as basisfor payment of capital gains and documentary stamp taxes relative to thesale of the subject lot in the amounts of only P299,700.00 and P89,910.00,respectively, when the capital gains, and documentary stamp and other taxesshould have been P524,475.00 and PI57,342.50, respectively, therebyshort-changing and causing undue injury to the government through evidentbad faith and manifest partiality in the total amoimt of TWO HUNDREDNINETY-TWO THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SEVEN and 50/100

PESOS ̂292,207.50), more or less.

CONTRARY TO LAW.^

Falsification of Public Document (Crim, Case No. 25134)

That on or about September 24. 1997, and sometime prior, orsubsequent thereto, in General Santos City, Philippines, and within thejurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused JOSE RAMISCAL, JR., ahigh ranking public official being then the President, and WILFREDOPABALAN a low-ranking public officer being the Project Director, both ofthe AFP-RSBS, while in the performance of their duties, taking advantageof their official positions and committing the offense in relation to theiroffices, conspiring and confederating with each other and with accusedNILO FLAVIANO and JACK GUIWAN. both private individuals, actingwith unfaithfulness and with malicious intent, did, there and then, wilfully,unlawfiolly and criminally falsify a public document by executing and/orcausing to be executed a Deed of Sale for a 999-sq.m. property particularlyidentified as Lot X-5 located at General Santos City and stating therein apurchase price of only P3,000.00 per square meter or a total of TWOMILLION NINE HUNDRED NINETY SEVEN THOUSAND

0^2,997,000.00) PESOS when in truth and in fact, as all the accused verywell knew and, in fact, agreed, the purchase price of said lot is PI0,500.00per square meter or a total of TEN MILLION FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY-NINE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED 0^10,489,500.00) PESOS, therebyperverting the truth.

CONTRARY TO LAW.«

The Informations vary only on the following details:

Crim. Case Nos. Date of Deed of

Absolute Sale

Seller

(Private Accused)Property

Violation

of Sec. 3(e)of RA 3019

Falsification

of Public

Documents

(25122) 25135 September 24,1997 Alex Guaybar LotX-4

25123 (25134) September 24,1997 Jack Guiwan Lot X-5

25124 25136 September 24,1997 Mad Guaybar LotX-1

25125 25137 September 24,1997 Oliver Guaybar LotX-2

25126 25138 September 24,1997 Jonathan Guaybar LotX-3

• 25127 25139 September 25,1997 Miguela Cabi-ao LotX-9.

25128 25140 September 25,1997 Jose Rommel Saludar LotX-10

' Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1-3^ Separate folders for subsequent Informations

//


DECISION

7 I P a g e

25129 25142 September 25,1997 Joel Teves LotX-11

25130 25143 September 25,1997 Rico Altizo LotX-12

25131 25145 September 25,1997 Martin Saycon LotX-14

25132 25144 September 25,1997 Johnny Medillo LotX-13

25133 25141 September 25,1997 Jolito Poralan LotX-8

Accused Ramiscal forthright filed an Urgent Motion to Dismiss and toDefer Issuance of Warrant of Arrest on Jurisdictional Grounds^ alleging thatthis Court had no jurisdiction over him, as the AFP-RSBS was a private entity.He averred that the Informations did not evea indicate his governmentposition or salary grade. During his presidency of the AFP-RSBS, he was aretired general, hence, a private individual. He thus sought the deferment ofthe issuance of a warrant of arrest in view of the jurisdictional issue andinvoked his right to seek reconsideration or reinvestigation by the Office ofthe Ombudsman. Accused Flaviano and Alex Guaybar adopted accusedRamiscal's Motion}^-

The Prosecution opposed^^ accused Ramiscal's Motion to Dismiss,maintaining that AFP-RSBS was a government entity, citing P.D. 361, Sec. 6,which states that it was administered by the Chief of Staff, hence, an adjunctof the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Only members of the AFP wereeligible to join the AFP-RSBS, and accused Ramiscal, who received benefitshigher than that received by a government employee with Salary Grade 27,was subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Ruling that it had to acquirejurisdiction over the persons of the accused before it could act on the motionsfiled by the accused, the Fourth Division of this Court denied the motions inits Resolution dated April 5, 1999,^^ and ordered the issuance of Warrants ofArrest against accused Ramiscal and his co-accused.^^ The accused thenposted bail for their provisional liberty.

In People v. Sandiganbayan, et al.,^^ the Supreme Court declared thatAFP-RSBS was a government entity and its funds were in the nature of publicftinds.

On June 3,1999, accused Ramiscal filed a Motion for Reinvestigation,asking this Court to direct the Ombudsman to act upon its Motion forReconsideration and Reinvestigation dated February 12, 1999 before

® Records, Vol. 1, pp. 36-64Urgent Motion and Manifestation to Adopt "Urgent Motion to Dismiss and to Defer Issuance of Warrant

ofArrest on Jurisdictional Grounds" filed by Accused Jose Ramiscal, Jr., id., pp. 65-67Opposition to Urgent Motion to Dismiss and Defer Issuance of Warrant of Arrest on Jurisdictional Grounds,

Id., pp. 300-307

"/d, pp. 338-342Orders of Arrest against Alex Guaybar (25122 & 25135) - Id., p. 343; Jose S. Ramiscal, Jr., Wilfredo G.

Pabalan, and Nilo J. Flaviano (25122 to 25145) - Id., p. 345Ramiscal - Reduced bail - Id., pp. 359-360; Pabalan - Reduced bail - Id., pp. 379-380; Flaviano, Alex

Guaybar, Johnny Medillo, Jack Guiwan, Mad Guaybar, Oliver Guaybar, Jonathan Guaybar, Miguela Cabi-ao,Jose Rommel Saludar, Joel Teves, Rico Altizo, Martin Saycon and Jolito Poralan - Mon//estot/on dated April

9,1999 with attached Order of RTC General Santos City Br. 23, Records, Vol. 2, pp. 4-6" G.R. No. 145951, August 12, 2003

Records, Vol. 2, pp. 46-191 /v/■"r

People V. Jose Ramlscal, Jr., et al. 8 | P a g eCriminal Case Nos. 25122 to 25145

DECISION

proceeding with this case. In his Motion for Reinvestigation^ accusedRamiscal again cited the Ombudsman's lack of jurisdiction over the charges,the RSBS being a private entity, and argued that as then President of the AFP-RSBS, he was a retired general, hence, a private individual; that theOmbudsman's Resolution finding probable cause against him was speculativeand conjectural; that the finding of conspiracy had no basis; and that there wasnew evidence purportedly exculpating him of the charges, i.e., the affidavit ofaccused Flaviano dated February 12, 1999 claiming that he alone executed,used and registered the unilateral Deeds of Sale, and those of Mad, Alex,Oliver, and Jonathan Guaybar, Martin Saycon, and Jonathan Medillo, sayingthat they never dealt with accused Ramiscal nor Pabalan with respect to theproperties, and merely relied on accused Flaviano to represent them. ASupplemental Motion for Reinvestigation^^ was subsequently filed discussingthe alleged dearth of evidence against accused Ramiscal, who was indicted asa mere conspirator, and his participation had not been established. SuchMotion was granted in a Resolution dated Jime 11, 1999,*® wherein theProsecution was given time to conduct a reinvestigation against all theaccused.

Initially, the Law Firm of Albano and Associates was allowed to enterits appearance as private prosecutor in a Resolution dated June 9, 1999,*^which was assailed by accused Ramiscal in a Petition for Review on Certiorariwith the Supreme Court docketed as G.R. Nos. 140576-99. Proceedings weremeanwhile held in abeyance as the original Records of these cases wereforwarded to the Supreme Court.^® In a Decision dated December 13,2004,^*the Supreme Court reversed this Court's Resolutions allowing the appearanceof the Law Firm of Albano and Associates.

Proceedings resumed in February 2006, following the Motion to SetCase for Hearing by the Prosecution,^^ the return of the original records fromthe Supreme Court, and the Compliance^^ by the Prosecution submitting therecommendation of the Office of the Ombudsman after its reinvestigation ofthe cases, with this Court's denial of the accused's motion to transfer thevenue of these cases to Davao City and the setting of the accused'sarraignment.^^

Only accused Ramiscal, Pabalan, Flaviano, Alex Guaybar, OliverGuaybar, Jonathan Guaybar, Cabi-ao, Saludar, Teves, and Poralan appearedduring arraignment. When arraigned, accused Ramiscal and Flaviano refused

" through collaborating counsel, Id., pp. 192-200 ^"Id., p. 227 ^ jj" Resolution dated June 9,1999, Id., pp. 218-220, Resolution on MR dated October 22,1999, Id., pp. 306- "310

" Resolution dated September 17, 2004, Records, Vol. 3, p. 24" GR Nos. 140576-99, December 13, 2004-Id., pp. 58-81" Dated June 6, 2005, Records, Vol. 3, pp. 37-40" Re: Return of Case Records dated July 19,2005, Id., p. 5324 Dated January 5,2006, Id., pp. 127-138

" Order dated February 14,2006, Id., p. 172

People V. Jose Ramlscal, Jr., et al. 9 | P a g eCriminal Case Nos.* 25122 to 25145DECISION

to enter any plea; thus, a plea of not guilty was entered for them. The rest ofthe accused pleaded not guilty to the charges filed against them.^^

Accused Ramiscal later sought to set aside his arraignment,^' claimingthat it was conducted with haste during the pendency of his Motion forReconsideration with the Office of the Special Prosecutor, who, in turn,opposed such motion, being accused Ramiscal's second motion forreconsideration.^^ Accused Ramiscal's Motion was denied in a Resolution

dated April 5,2006.^^

No admissions and stipulations were jointly arrived at by the partiesduring pre-trial.^® The following issues were defmed:^^

For the Prosecution

1. Whether or not accused public officers in conspiracy with accusedprivate individuals falsified or caused the falsification of the Deeds ofSale of Lots X-1 to X-14 by making it appear that the purchase price ofsaid lot[s] is only Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00) per square meterwhen in truth and in fact they have agreed that the said lots will be soldfor PI0,500.00 per square meter.

2. Whether or not accused public officers in conspiracy with accusedprivate individuals used the said falsified Deed of Sale as basis for thepayment of capital gains tax and documentary stamp taxes therebyshortchanging and causing imdue injury to the government.

3. Whether or not accused are liable for Violation of Section 3(e) of RA, 3019.

4. Whether or not accused are liable for Falsification of Public Documents.

For the accused Ramiscal

Whether or not the prosecution has a case against accused Ramiscalas charged in the information.

For the rest of the accused except Pabalan

Whether or not all the accused have conspired.^^

Trial ensued.

//'r

2® Id., pp. 263-288" Motion to Set Aside Arraignment dated March 8,2006, id., pp. 316-320

Comment/Opposition dated March 21,2006, id., pp. 333-340^id.,pp. 364-369

Manifestation dated June 16, 2006, Records, Vol. 4, pp. 71-72Pre-Triai Order dated July 6, 2006, Records, Vol. 4, pp. 107-112

id., p. Ill


DECISION •

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

The Prosecution presented seven (7) witnesses, who testified asfollows:

1. Luwalhati R. Antonino ["Antonino"], private complainant, was therepresentative of the First District of South Cotabato in 1997.^^ On December18,1997 she filed a Complaint^"^ before the Office of the Ombudsman againstthen General Santos City Mayor Rosalita Nunez, other city officials, DENRofficials. Presiding Judge Abednego O. Adre, AFP-RSBS Officials JoseRamiscal and Wilfiredo Pabalan, and the sellers of Lot X for Violation of R.A.3019 Sees. 3(e), (g), and (j) and Malversation of Public Funds or Propertythrough Falsification of Public Documents after having learned of thewrongful acquisition of a portion of Magsaysay Park, located at GeneralSantos City, which has been declared to be inalienable under PresidentialProclamation No. 168 by President Macapagal.^^ Although parts ofMagsaysay Park were later declared to be alienable by President Marcos underPresidential Proclamation No. 2273,^^ the lots subject of these cases, i.e., thosecomprising Lot X, were not among those excluded.^^

Antonino explained that under Proclamation No. 2273, PresidentMarcos segregated the lots denominated as Lots Y-1 and Y-2 as alienable,leaving inalienable the portion denominated as Lot X. In a CompromiseAgreement, portions of Lots Y-1 and Y-2 were conceded to the Heirs ofCabalo Kusop, while there was no disposition with respect to Lot X, which,under the whereas clause, has already been "offer[ed] x x x in [the City's]favor sometime in 1975". Five years fi'om the approval of the CompromiseAgreement, the Heirs of Cabalo Kusop moved for die exclusion of Lot X fromthe Compromise Agreement, which was granted. Subsequently, they filedMiscellaneous Sales Patent Applications over Lot X, which were approved.Lot X was thereafter subdivided into sixteen (16) lots and Original Certificatesof Title were issued in the name of accused-sellers, among others.^^ Thetechnical descriptions on the 16 titles corresponded to the technicaldescription of Lot X, which was earlier declared inalienable under PresidentialProclamation No. 168. Shortly thereafter, the accused-sellers sold lots X-1 toX-5, and X-8 to X-14, through their attomey-in-fact, accused Flaviano,^^ toAFP-RSBS, in whose name the titles were transferred"^® after the taxes werepaid to the BIR."^^ v

A/vTSN dated January 4, 2007, p. 8^ Exhibit

Annex "A" to Complaint, Exhibit^ Annex "D" to Complaint, Exhibit "QM"TSN dated January 4,2007, pp. 10-19

^ Annexes "N", etseq. to Complaint, Exhibits. "Q''-14" to "Cr*-14-n"Deeds of Absolute Sale, Annexes "0", etseq. to Complaint, Exhibits. "Q'^-IS" to "Q''-15-j"Annexes "P", etseq. to Complaint, Exhibits. "Q^'-IS" to "Q^-ie-n"TSN dated January 4,2007, pp. 27-49; Complaint-Affidavit of Luwalhati Antonino, Exhibit "Q''", pars. 2.20-

2.34


DECISION

A hearing on the matter was conducted in Congress by its Committeeon Good Government, wherein Antonino was invited as resource person,having rendered the privilege speech that exposed the sale of Lot X. AccusedFlaviano was also invited to the hearing."^^ The sellers were also invited butdid not honor the invitation."*^ During said hearing, accused Ramiscaladmitted that they paid PI0,500.00 per square meter for the lots, while theBIR record showed that only F3,000.00 per square meter was paid."*"*Vouchers showed the sale of 14 of the 16 subdivisions of Lot X for P10,500.00each, while the consideration for the other two lots was a condominium."*^

Antonino believed that the Heirs of Cabalo Kusop conspired with theDepartment of Natural Resources, Bureau of Lands and the Register of Deedsto declare Lot X alienable and disposable. The lot was sold to the claimantsfor a mere PI00 per square meter, and then, with undue haste, registered intheir name, and later sold to the AFP-RSBS, and then transferred in the latter'sname. To her mind. Lot X remained the property of General Santos City,citing the Decision of the RTC of General Santos City in a reversion casedeclaring it to be so."*^ This, however, was still subject of an appeal as of thetime of her testimony."*^

On cross-examination, Antonino explained that during theirinvestigation, the payment of taxes was not as much a concern to them as thefact that the subject lots were actually owned by the government. She wouldnot know whether the BIR initiated any action pertaining to thesetransactions."*^ She also acknowledged that she was not certain if accusedPabalan and Ramiscal were aware of the execution of the Deed of Absolute

Sale bearing the amount of P3,000.00 per square meter, as they were notamong the signatories to the Special Power of Attorney."*^

She likewise stated that her husband, Aldelbert Antonino, former mayorof General Santos City, was also called as resource person during the hearingof the Committee on Good Government, as he had access to data at the timethat he held office. After one term as Mayor, he lost to Mayor Rosalita Nunez,who was also impleaded in Antonino's Complaint before the Office of theOmbudsman.^® ^ ts

yy

TSN dated January 5,2007, pp. 9,15-16

p. 26

^ Minutes of the Hearing of the Committee on Good Government dated October 28,1997, Exh. "L'"', TSNdated January 4,2007, pp. 49-51^5/d., p. 75

Decision of RTC General Santos in Civil Case No. 4619, Exh. "R^', TSN dated January 4,2007, pp. 53-56TSN dated January 4, 2007, p. 63; The reversion case finally ended in Republic v. AFP-RSBS, et a!., G.R.

No. 180463, January 16, 2013

^TSN dated January 5,2007, pp. 27-28TSN dated January 4,2007, p. 60

5° TSN dated January 5, 2007, pp. 16-17


DECISION

12 i P a g e

2. Caroline E. Mercado ["Mercado"] was the Head of the Office ofthe Comptroller of the AFP-RSBS from December 1995 to February 2002.^^As such, she was involved in management and planning, and likewiseexercised direction and control over the AFP-RSBS' Accounting Division andthe Department and Management Reporting Division. She recalled thatsometime in 1995 to 1996, AFP-RSBS purchased parcels of land located inGeneral Santos City denominated as Lots X-1 to X-5 and X-8 to X-14, whichproject was approved by the Board of Trustees of the AFP-RSBS.^^ She wasinvolved in the Project's planning and payment.^^

The Project was handled by the AFP-RSBS Real Estate ManagementDepartment, particularly Project Director Wilfredo Pabalan, together with histwo administrative assistants, Alan Aguirre and Andy Bernardo; the head ofthe Documentation Branch of the Legal Department; and Lilia Canono fromthe Finance Department.^'^

Once the Project was approved by the Board of Trustees, the RealEstate Management Department prepared the Requests for Voucher andCheck Preparation, the Investment Control Form, as well as other supportingdocuments. Her office then prepared the General Vouchers for payment.^^Mercado identified the following General Vouchers and their attachments:

General

Vouchers

DispositionForms

Investment

Control

Forms

Requests forVoucher

and Check

Preparation

Contracts /

AgreementsChecks Acknow

ledgmentReceipts

Lots X-1

to X-5

Exh. "E" Exh. "B" Exh. "C" Exh. "D" Exhs."F"to"F-8"

"F-9"to"F-ll",

"F-12"to"F-13"

(amendments), "F-14to"F-17"(Deedof Absolute Sale)

Exh. "G" Exh. "G-1

Exh. "K" Exh."H" Exh. "I" Exh. "J" Exh. "L" Exh. "L-1"

Exh. "P" Exh. "0-1" Exh. "0" Exh. "0" Exh. "0-1"

Exh. "U" Exh. "S" Exh. "T' Exh. "V" Exh. "V-1"

Lots X-8

to X-14

Exh. "AA" Exh. "X" Exh. "Y" Exh. "Z" Exhs. "BE", "HH" Exh. "CC" Exhs. "CC-

1", "CC-2"

Exh. "FF" Exh. "EE" Exh. "DO" Exh. "GO" Exh. "GG-l"

Exh;"LL" Exhs. "Jr,'WI-6"

Exh. "KK" Exh. "H" Exhs. "MM","NN"

Exhs. "NN-

rto"NN-5"

Exhs. "IT',"WW"

Exhs. "FF",«WW-4"

Exhs. "QQ","VV"

Exhs. "RR","UU"

Exhs. "XX","YY","ZZ","AAA","BBB"

Exhs. "WW-

6", "WW-8","BBB-1 to

"BBB-5"

Exh. "CCC" Exh."EEE" Exh. "ODD" Exhs. "FFF'

to "FFF-1"

The Disposition Form was an internal document that showed approvalof payment by management, while the Investment Control Form was preparedby the Real Estate Management Department to start the process of payment.^^

at the time she testified, she was Head of the Accounting Department of AFP-RSBSApproval Sheet, Exhibits "A" to "A-1"; "A-2" to "A-3"

S3 TSN dated August 22, 2006, pp. 10-11,15s^/d., pp. 11-13ss Id., pp. 13,84s® TSN dated August 22, 2006, pp. 23, 28-29

7'1


DECISION

Payment was received by accused Atty. Nilo Flaviano in behalf of thesellers as their attomey-in-fact.^^ The total amount paid for lots X-1 to X-5and X-8 to X-14 was P93,947,500.00. Titles were subsequently issued in thename of AFP-RSBS. These titles were vmder the custody of the BoardCustodian of the RSBS which Mercado requested to produce in order tocomply with the subpoena.^^ She had no knowledge as to how these TCTswere acquired by AFP-RSBS, and only came across them shortly beforetestifying.^^

On cross-examination, Mercado conceded that she did not havepersonal knowledge of the agreement between the parties and clarified thatshe was not responsible for the preparation and release of the checks, and wasnot aware whether the registration of the Deed of Absolute Sale in the nameof AFP-RSBS was a condition precedent to the release of payment to thesellers, but asserted that it was not a condition precedent in preparing thevouchers.^® She confirmed, however, that the dorsal portions of the checksmarked as Exhibits "FFF", "FFF-1", "XX", "YY", and "ZZ" did not bear thesignatures of accused Flaviano.^^ She was not aware if accused Ramiscal hadvoting rights as member of the AFP-RSBS Board of Trustees.^^

3. Marietta Co-Arnaldo ["Co-Amaldo"] was the Head of the HumanResource Management Office of the AFP-RSBS. In 1996 to 1997, she wasthe Head of the Corporate Research and Services Department, and as such,also sat as a member of its Investment Committee.^^

As Head of the Human Resource Management Office, she administeredthe compensation and benefits of the AFP-RSBS, ran the PerformanceManagement System, and managed the personnel data of all previous andcurrent RSBS employees. She came to court in response to a subpoena tobring documents showing the designation of accused Ramiscal and Pabalanin AFP-RSBS for the years 1996 to 1997.^

While she could not recall the composition of the AFP-RSBS Board ofTrustees in 1997, she remembered that accused Ramiscal was its President, asshe had been with the AFP-RSBS since 1979.^^ She brought to Court theRelief and Designation of Personnel dated July 1, 1997, the composition andlist of officers of the Investment Committee for 1996-1997, the Minutes of theMeeting of the Investment Committee on January 14, 1997, and the Agendaof the AFP-RSBS meeting on December 10,1997.^^

I"Joint Special Power of Attorney, Exhibit "M"*;" TSN dated August 22, 2006, pp. 22-23,32-34"TSN dated August 22, 2006, pp. 74-78"/£/., pp. 94-95

pp. 110-112,118

" Id., pp. 100,103-104" Id., p. 91" TSN dated September 19,2006, p. 7^ Id., pp. 7-S® Id., p. 26^ These documents were marked during trial but not offered in evidence.

Y


DECISION

4. Noel B. Gonzales ["Gonzales"] was the Chief of Assessment ofRevenue District 110 of BIR General Santos City in 1997.^^

Gonzales testified that in 1997, the BIR procedure in the transfer of titleof real property was as follows: First, the taxpayer had to present certainrequired documents to the officer of the day. The latter, or an examiner, thencomputes the capital gains and documentary stamp taxes and prepares thecapital gains tax return. The collection agent prepares the authority to acceptpayment to be signed by the examiner ̂ d approved by the Assistant RevenueDistrict Officer, before presentation to the bank for payment. After payment,a photocopy of the proof of payment is submitted to the examiner and thecapital gains tax in-charge for the preparation of the Revenue VerificationOrder, to be initialled by the Chief of Assessment and approved by theAssistant Revenue District Officer. The Examiner then prepares theExaminer's Audit Report, to be reviewed by the Chief of Assessment andapproved by the Assistant Revenue District Officer. Finally, these documentsare submitted to the capital gains tax clearance in-charge for the preparationof the Certificate Authorizing Registration.^®

Gonzales testified that he reviewed the documents for the transfer of

the titles of Lots X-1 to X-5 and X-8 to X-14, i.e., the deed of sale, taxdeclaration, title, assessor's certification that the property had noimprovements, revenue verification order, and examiner's audit report. Thecapital gains tax was P299,700.00, and the documentary stamp tax F89,910.00for each lot. These were based on the zonal valuation of F6,000.00 per squaremeter, which was higher than the selling price, and were paid by accused NiloFlaviano.^^

During cross-examination, Gonzales explained that Conrado C. Lee,whose signature appeared in the Certificates Authorizing Registration,^^ wasa Revenue Examiner, who was tasked with the computation of capital gainstax and documentary stamp tax.^^ He remarked that the signature of ConradoLee appeared to be similar to those appearing above the printed name, "Atty.Nilo J. Flaviano" in several Capital Gains Tax Return/Application forCertificate Authorizing Registration.^^ According to Gonzales, he noticed thisonly when he was asked on cross examination, as he was merely concernedwilii the accuracy of the zonal valuation and computation of tax in thedischarge of his duties, but clarified that an examiner was not authorized to

p.yTSN dated January 5,2007, p. 46

/d, pp. 47-4812 sets of documents - Exhibits. etseq.; TSN dated January 5,2007, pp. 48-49

'®/d,pp. 57-61Exhibit "IM"

77 TSN dated January 5, 2007, pp. 71-7273 Id., pp. 78-79; See Exhibits "i^-85," i'*-87," 1^-89," 1^-91," i''-93," 1^-95," 1^^-97," i''-99," I'^-lOl," 1^-103," 1^-105," and 1^-107"


DECISION

15 I P a g e

sign in behalf of a taxpayer in a capital gains tax return.^'* He had no personalknowledge if the BIR initiated, any case involving these transactions.^^

5. Jasmine M. Dosejo ["Dosejo"], lawyer, acting Register ofDeeds of General Santos City since 2005, was tasked with the approval ofregistrations of documents, and the oversight of the performance of theRegister of Deeds personnel. Prior thereto, she was Deputy Register of Deedssince 2003.^^

In response to a subpoena she received, Dosejo presented and identifiedthe owners' Katihayan ng Orihinal na Titulo,^^ the Deeds of Sale of Lotis X-1to X-5 and X-8 to X-14,^® the Joint Power of Attorney executed by thevendors in favor of accused Flaviano for Lots X-1 to X-5 and Lots X-8 to X-

14, and the Certificates Authorizing Registration issued by the BIR.^^ Basedon these documents, a new title was issued in the name of AFP-RSBS.^®

From the Katibayan ng Orihinal na Titulo issued as a result of salespatent applications, the following appear to be the registered owners thereof:

Exhibit Katibayan ngOrihinal na Titulo

No.

RegisteredOwner

Location of Lot . Land Area

(in squaremeters)

P-6394-A

(LotX-14)Martin Saycon^ Dadiangas,

General Santos

City

999

H^-1 P-6390

(LotX-13)Johnny Medillo Dadiangas,

General Santos

City

999

P-6395

(LotX-12)Rico Altizo Dadiangas,

General Santos

City

999

H^-3 P-6396

(Lot X-11)Joel Teves Dadiangas,

General Santos

City

999

HM P-6388

(Lot X-10)Jose Rommel

Saludar

Dadiangas,General Santos

City

999

H^-5 .P-6392-A

(LotX-9)MiguelaCabi-ao

Dadiangas,General Santos

City

999

P-6391

(Lot X-8)Jolito Poralan^ Dadiangas,

General Santos

City

999

H^-7 P-6399

(Lot X-5)Jack Guiwan"^ Dadiangas,

General Santos

City

999

^Mcf.,pp. 80-82Id., pp. 96-97

^®TSN dated April 18,2007, p. 10Exhibits "H'*" to "H^'-ll"

Exhibits "ILL" to "UUU"

Exhibits'T"' to "r»-34"

^'TSN dated April 18, 2007, pp; 11-36

iy


DECISION

16 I P a g e

H^-8 P-6393

(LotX-4)Alex Guaybar Dadiangas,

General Santos

City

999

n'^-9 P-6389-A

(LotX-3)Jonathan

GuaybarDadiangas,

General Santos

City

999

H^-10 P-6392

(LotX-2)Oliver

GuaybarDadiangas,

General Santos

City

999

H^-11 P-6393-A

(Lot X-1)Mad

Guaybar^Dadiangas,

General Santos

City

999

On cross-examination, she clarified that she testified merely based onthe records, as she was not yet with the Register of Deeds in 1997 when thedocuments were presented. The lots were subject of a sales patent, and werethus presumed alienable. She recalled that the titles were annotated withnotices of lis pendens but could not recall if the subject lots were subject ofpending cases for insufficient payment of tax.®^

6. Conrado C. Lee ["Lee"] was a Revenue Officer of theAssessment Section of the Revenue District Office of General Santos City in1997. As such, he considered tax audit as his important duty.®^

Lee recalled that in September 1997, he received a set of documentspertaining to the transfer of title to AFP-RSBS containing a Deed of AbsoluteSale, tax declaration. Special Power of Attorney, and vicinity map, but noticedthat there was no Capital Gains Tax Return. He thus instructed the capitalgains processor clerk to prepare the same based on his computation.^^

If based on the selling price of P2,997,000.00, capital gains tax on thesaid lot would only amount to PI 70,000.00, which, however, would put thegovernment at a disadvantage as the lot was within the commercial lots. Thus,he based his computation for capital gains tax not on the selling price but thenearest market zonal valuation, or P6,000.00 per square meter, which wasapproved by the Chief of the Assessment Division. The zonal values of LotsX-1 to X-5 and X-8 to X-14 were all P6,000.00 per square meter. He signedthe capital gains tax return for and in behalf of Nilo Flaviano, since the latterdid not file a return, and it was incumbent upon them to do so for him. In suchcase, Flaviano had no participation in the preparation of the capital gains taxreturn.^'*

"/cf., pp. 38-42" TSN dated April 18, 2007, pp. 44-45^ Capital Gains Tax Return or Application for Certificate Authorizing Registration under the name Madand BIdalla Guaybar, Exhibits Id., pp. 45-48^ TSN dated April 18, 2007, pp. 48-53; See Exhibits '^-85," l'»-87," 1^-89," 1^-91," 1^-93," l'*-95," 1^-97," l''-99," I^-IOI," 1^-103," 1^-105," and 1^-107"

People V. Jose Ramiscal, Jr., et al. 17 ) P a g eCriminal Case Nos. 25122 to 25145

DECISION

7. Jaime E. Abella ["Abella"], Banking Center Head of thenEquitable PCI Bank since 2003 who oversaw the overall operation of thebank.^^

Based on the signature cards, Abella testified that AFP-RSBSmaintained two commercial accounts with Equitable PCI Bank in 1997,whose signatories were Jose S. Ramiscal, Jr., Oscar Martinez, EdmundoMindigo, Alfredo Agbert, Jr., Cesar Ibo, Ponciano Bautista, Jr., Dahlia Pena,Francisco Paredes, and Perfecto Quilicot. Any two of these signatories wereauthorized to transact in behalf of AFP-RSBS.^^

Abella identified checks^^ negotiated under such account in the nameof Nilo Flaviano, which, as bank policy, was allowed only by the payee namedtherein, or a duly-authorized representative under a special power ofattomey.^^ During cross-examination, however, he conceded that he has notseen the originals of these checks, photocopies of which he first saw only theyear prior when he conferred with the Office of the Special Prosecutor.^®

On cross-examination, Abella elaborated that in 1997, he was assignedat the PCI Bank Cubao Branch where AFP-RSBS maintained its accounts. He

was confronted with PCI Bank Check No. 000430004 dated October 10,1997in the amount of P4,223,750.00^^ where only one signatory appeared butwhich Abella said was valid. In certain instances, the bank, asaccommodation, honored a check with only one signature after verballyconfirming with the other signatories. For AFP-RSBS, the contact person wasMs. Dahlia Pena. He did not think that such accommodation was a violation

of Central Bank Rules and Regulations. As a policy, notations were to bemade that the check was honored notwithstanding that it had only onesignatory, but Abella could not answer for the General Santos Branch of thebank, where the check was negotiated.^^

The Prosecution then proceeded to offer the following exhibits:^^

Exhibit Document

"A"

"A-2"

AFP-RSBS Approval Sheets for the acquisition of Lots X-1 to X-5 andX-8 to X-14

"B"to"L",ttpSJ

"S"'to"V",

General Vouchers, Disposition Forms, Investment Control Forms,Requests for Voucher and Check Preparation, Contracts / Agreements,Checks and Acknowledgment Receipts for Lots X-1 to X-5

®=TSN dated August 13, 2007, pp. 7-8Exhibits "S^' to "S^-3"

" T5N dated August 13, 2007, pp. 8-9,19,30®® Exhibits "G", "L", "Q", "P", "CC", "GG", "MM", "NN", "XX", "YY", "DD", "AAA", "BBB", "FFF"

pp. 10-13

p. 28

Exhibit "V"

TSN dated August 13, 2007, pp. 18-24

Formal Offer of Exhibits for the Prosecution filed on September 12,2007; Records, Vol. 5, pp. 15-78;Separate folder with original marked exhibits


DECISION

18 I P a g e

"Z",'"AA"to'W, "PP"to "RR",

"TT"to

"ZZ",

"AAA"to

"FFF"

General Vouchers, Disposition Forms, Investment Control Forms,Requests for Voucher and Check Preparation, Contracts / Agreements,Checks and Acknowledgment Receipts for Lots X-8 to X-14

"LLU'to

"WWW"

Deeds of Absolute Sale of Lots X-1 to X-5, X-8 to X-14

"H^"to Original Certificates of Title of Lots X-1 to X-5, X-8 to X-14

"P"to"P-107"

Certificates Authorizing Registration and other BIR Documents for thetransfer of titles of Lots X-1 to X-5, X-8 to X-14 to AFP-RSBSTranscript of Stenographic Notes of the October 28, 1997 CommitteeHearing of the Committee on Good Government

Joint Special Power of Attorney in favor of Atty. Nilo Flaviano"Q'»"to«q4.23»

Complaint of Luwalhati Antonino dated December 18, 1997 and itsAnnexes

Decision of RTC General Santos City, Br. 23 in Civil Case No. 6419cc^4)» PCIB Signature cards for AFP-RSBS Account Nos. 0453-57634-6 and

0452-06730-8

"U"to«T4.34»

Certificates Authorizing Payment, Capital Gains Tax Returns /Applications for Certificate Authorizing Registration, Authority toAccept Payment, and Official Receipts filed with the Register of Deedspertaining to Lots X-1 to X-5, X-8 to X-14

In a Resolution dated October 24, 2007,^"^ the Fourth Division of thisCourt admitted all the exhibits offered by the Prosecution. Upon admissionof the Prosecution's exhibits, accused Flaviano filed a Motion for Leave toFile Demurrer to Evidence, nonetheless attaching thereto his Demurrer toEvidence.^^

Meanwhile, per directive of the Supreme Court, the records were oncemore elevated in relation to a Petition for Certiorari filed by accused Ramiscalassailing this Court's Resolution dated April 5, 2006 denying his Motion toSet Aside His Arraignment. Consequently, the proceedings were once moresuspended^^ imtil the Records were returned on January 7, 2011^' followingthe Supreme Court's denial of accused Ramiscal's Petition.^^

Proceedings resumed with the denial of accused Flaviano's Motion forLeave to File Demurrer to Evidence in a Resolution dated February 14,2011.^^ Accused Flaviano subsequently manifested that he was opting not to

/123

/cf., pp. 132-154

p. 127

Re: Return of Case Records dated December 29,2010, Id., p. 239G.R. No. 172476-99, September 15,2010, id., pp. 245-649; Resolution dated January 18,2011, Id., p.

260

Id., pp. 285-286


DECISION

submit his Demurrer to Evidence for resolution without leave of court, andwas thus availing of his right to present evidence.

EVIDENCE FOR THE ACCUSED

The accused proceeded to present their evidence, as follows:

For accused Ramiscal

1. Jose S. Ramiscal ["accused Ramiscal"] was the President ofAFP-RSBS from March 1994 up to July 1998.*®^ The AFP-RSBS wasengaged in businesses with operations venturing into real estate, lending,leasing and other investments.^®^ As President, he was the Chief ExecutiveOfficer charged with the implementation of policies and directives of itsBoard of Trustees, as well as the general supervision of the AFP-RSBS'business affairs and transactions.^®^ He was likewise authorized to signcontracts and documents in behalf of AFP-RSBS.^®'* In the performance ofhis functions, he was assisted by the Investment and Executive Committees,which reviewed and evaluated the AFP-RSBS' projects. Projects costingmore than P5 Million were delegated to the Board of Trustees, which wascomposed of 11 members, including himself.^®^

Accused Ramiscal recalled that sometime in 1995 to 1996, MayorRosalita Nunez of General Santos City ("GenSan") conducted a road show atthe AFP headquarters in Camp Aguinaldo encouraging investment in lots inGenSan. The management was convinced that GenSan was a prime locationfor investment because of its infrastructure and industries, so it sent a team,headed by Col. Garcia, to GenSan to scout for property that AFP-RSBS couldinvest in.^®^ They found a three-hectare land along Acharon Boulevard, whichaccused Ramiscal likewise personally saw and described as actually situatedat a prime location. The plan was to build therein a mixed commercialbusiness establishment including a hotel and a marina complex, which theycalled the "GenSan Project".'®^

The property was appraised, and the legal team checked the property'stitles and other documents. A feasibility study was done on the project, whichwas recommended by the head of the Real Estate Management Group and the

Manifestation dated February 18,2011, id., pp. 289-290 f100

TSN dated March 3,2011, p. 45 ^ *TSN dated June 29, 2017, p. 11

TSN dated March 3,2011, p. 45

^°^TSN dated June 29, 2017, p. 12105 TSN dated March 3,2011, pp. 46-47

106/d., pp. 48-51107/d., pp. 53-54


DECISION

Executive Committee, and ultimately approved by the Board of Trustees, asshown in the Approval Sheet of the Confirmation of the Acquisition of LotsX-8 to X-14 Purok Islam, General Santos City.^®® The lots were eventuallypurchased^®^ with acquisition cost at PI0,500.00 per square meter, as shownin the Disposition Form, Investment Control Form, Request for Voucher,Check Preparation form, and General Voucher prepared for the purpose.Accused Ramiscal did not know if this amount was actually paid to thesellers. The agreement was to transfer the title to AFP-RSBS before fullpayment could be made.^^*

As recounted by accused Ramiscal, accused Pabalan was a RetiredMajor who was assigned as the Project Officer of the GenSan Project by thenHead of the Real Estate Management Department, Col. Ruben Garcia. Hereported to Col. Garcia who, in tum, periodically reported to accusedRamiscal.^ Accused Pabalan prepared the Disposition Form^ for the partialpayment for the Guaybar Properties, i.e., Lots X-1 to X-5, and then presentedit to Col. Garcia; Col. Ibo, Chief of the Corporate Head and Business Group;and Col. Martinez, Executive Vice President, before it was submitted to himfor his signature.^

Mentioned in the Disposition Form was accused Atty. Nilo Flaviano,who was the sellers' attomey-in-fact for the sale of all the subject parcels ofland. While he has met accused Flaviano, he did not know and never had anoccasion to meet any of the sellers.^ Neither did he have knowledge of thedeeds of sale of these lots executed by accused Flaviano,^ as these were notin the records of the AFP-RSBS. It was only in October 1997, when he wascalled to the Lower House Committee Hearing on the complaint of Cong.Luwalhati Antonino regarding the sale of such lots, that he saw thesedocuments. Another hearing was conducted before the Senate Blue RibbonCommittee sometime in 1998, where he was also invited as resource person.^He did not personally know Cong. Antonino, but he knew that her husbandwas the political rival of Mayor Nufiez of GenSan during the time that theAFP-RSBS expressed interest in the GenSan properties.^

According to accused Ramiscal, he was the only one among themembers of the Board of Trustees and the signatories to the general voucherwho was charged before the Office of the Ombudsman.

fj.

Exhibits "A-2" and "A-3" adopted as Exhibits "16-Ramiscal" and "17-Ramiscai;" TSN dated March 3,2011,pp. 54-56

Exhibits "1," "J," "K," and "L" adopted as Exhibits "18" to 21" for accused Ramiscal"0 TSN dated March 3, 2011, pp. 57,59-67 - y

TSN dated June 29, 2017, p. 16 ' (y ' ̂"2 TSN dated March 3,2011, pp. 14-15 ^ ^

Exhibit "2"

TSN dated March 3,2011, pp. 16-20

"5/d., pp. 20-23Exhibits "3" to "14"

TSN dated March 3, 2011, pp. 23-37

/of., pp. 51-52/d, pp. 58, 65-66


DECISION

In the course of accused Ramiscal's testimony, which spanned a periodof five (5) years, the Records were transmitted to the Supreme Court for thethird time, for the resolution of the Petition for Certiorari filed by the counselfor accused Ramiscal assailing this Court's orders holding them liable to payfine for their non-appearance during pre-trial. The Records were returnedin January 2012,^^^ and the continuation of accused Ramiscal's testimony wasset on September 21 and 22,2016.^^^

Meanwhile, these cases were re-raffled to the Seventh Division of thisCourt.

At this time, accused Ramiscal filed a Motion to Dismiss, citing thedelay of more than four (4) years to set this case for continuation of histestimony from the time the Records were returned by the Supreme Court, inviolation of his right to speedy trial. In its Comment/Opposition,^^^ theProsecution rejoined that accused Ramiscal failed to seasonably establish hisright to speedy trial. In a Resolution dated Octobier 3, 2016,^^^ this Courtdenied accused Ramiscal's Motion to Dismiss, in view of the fact that theProsecution has already rested its case, to which accused Ramiscal did notdemur, aggravated by accused Ramiscal's silence when no hearings were set,when it was his turn to present his evidence.

The proceedings thus continued.

For accused Alex Guavbar. Oliver Guavbar,

Jonathan Guavbar, Joel Teves and Jose

Rommel Saludar

2. Joel Teves ["accused Teves"], a laborer who finishedElementary school, testified that he only knew of these cases, and met accusedRamiscal and Pabalan, during arraignment in 2007.^^® He denied havingknowledge of the Deed of Absolute Sale^^^ and having signed it.*^® Accordingto him, he has never heard of Lot X, and has never sold property as he did notown any, but merely lived with his sister, Zenaida Boyco and his husband, inthe latter's property.^^^

/

y-rAccused Ramiscal's cross examination was deferred for 4 yearsG.R. No. 174507-30, August 30, 2011

^ Re: Return of Case Records dated January 12,2012, Records, Vol. 5, pp. 346-347Order dated July 12,2016, Id., p. 378Per Notice of Raffle dated July 12, 2016, pursuant to R.A. 10660, Id., p. 374

Records, Vol. 6, pp. 61-66"®/d.,pp. 73-78

pp. 84-88

"®TSN dated September 27,2017, pp. 9-11,26Exhibit "TTT"

dated September 27,2017, pp. 12-15pp. 18,23


DECISION

Accused Teves related that he first met accused Flaviano when the latter

hired him as construction worker for three months. While working for him,accused Flaviano's secretary approached him and asked him to sign adocument, but he did not know what such document was. Thinking it wasrelated to his job, and relying on the assurances of the secret^, he signed thedocument without reading it.^^^ He was the only one among his co-workersthat was asked to sign a document.

When confronted during cross-examination with the OriginalCertificate of Title (GOT) under his name,^^"^ he claimed that it was his firsttime to see such document.

3. The parties stipulated that if asked, Jose Rommel Saludar["accused Saludar"] would testify that (a) he met Atty. Flaviano when he washired as a laborer in the construction of the wall of Atty. Flaviano; (b) duringthat period, he was asked by the secretary of Atty. Flaviano to sign documents,which contents he was not aware of; (c) his educational attainment is Grade 4and he is unable to read and write English; (d) he does not own any propertyin General Santos; (e) prior to the filing of the case, he has never met Gen.Ramiscal and accused Wilfredo Pabalan; (f) prior to the filing of the case, hehas never met or known the other accused in this case except for Joel Teves;(g) he is not a signatory to the imilateral sale over Lot X-10 as mentioned inExhibit "SSS"; (h) he did not receive any amount for the sale of Lot X-10;and (i) he has not executed any SPA in favor of Atty. Flaviano.

When confronted with the OCT under his .name^^^ during cross-exaixdnation, accused Saludar denied having knowledge of it, and added thathe did not even know that he owned land.^^^

4. The parties also stipulated that if asked, Jonathan Guaybar["Jonathan Guaybar"] would testify that (a) his educational attainment isGrade 6; (b) his current occupation is that of a construction worker; and (c) hehas never signed any Unilateral Deed of Sale particularly Exhibit "NNN" overLotX-3.^39

Answering additional questions on direct examination, JonathanGuaybar testified that the other Guaybars impleaded in these cases were hisbrothers, but he did not know his other co-accused, except by their names. Hehas met accused Flaviano once when the latter went to their house to talk to

their father, but he did not know what they talked about. During said meeting.

132 Id., pp. 15-17133 Id., pp. 19-20 /

Exhibit "H'-S" f V133 TSN dated September 27,2017, p. 24 ' '133 Order dated September 27,2017, Records, Vol. 6, pp. 324-326132 Exhibit "HM"

13® TSN dated September 27, 2017, p. 43133 Order dated September 27, 2017, Records, Vol. 6, pp. 324-326


DECISION

he was asked to sign documents, which he did not understand, as they werewritten in English. At the young age of 20, he signed the documents withouttaking them seriously.^"*® He identified his signature on the Joint SpecialPower of Attorney, but did not know what it was or imderstand itsconsequences.^"*^

Prior to the filing of the cases, Jonathan Guaybar had not heard of LotX. He never authorized accused Flaviano to sell a parcel of lot in his behalf,nor received any amount from him. In fact, he still worked as a constructionworker.*"*^

On cross-examination, Jonathan Guaybar testified that he has lived withhis parents since he was bom in 1975, in what he knew was his grandfather'sproperty, until he left the place with his father. The property owned by hisgrandfather has been demolished, but he did not know why. When confrontedwith the OCX under his name,*"*"* he claimed that it was only then that he sawand leamed about said document.*"*^

The testimonies of Alex Guaybar and Oliver Guaybar were subjectof stipulation that if the same questions are asked to them, both on direct andcross-examination, they would give the same answers. Hence, they were nolonger called to the witness stand. *"*^

Accused Ramiscal adopted the testimonies of Teves, Saludar, andGuaybar, only insofar as they stated that they did not know him.*"*^

By Order dated September 27, 2017, the manifestation of Atty.Claudette Michelle Sacquing that no documentary exhibit would be offeredfor accused Alex Guaybar, Oliver Guaybar, Jonathan Guaybar, Joel Teves andJose Rommel Saludar, was noted.*"*^

After the presentation of the witnesses for the defense, only accusedRamiscal formally offered his documentary evidence,*"*^ as follows:

Exhibit Document

Special Power of Attorney executed in favor of Atty. NiloFlaviano

"2" AFP-RSBS Disposition Form dated August 11,1997(Exhibit "H")

/;dated September 27,2017, pp. 51-54 m yExhibit "M4" 'V '

"2 tsn dated September 27,2017,' p. 55 f X/d., pp. 55-56Exhibit

TSN dated September 27, 2017, pp. 57-60, 64

Order dated September 27, 2017, Records, Vol. 6, pp. 324-326, TSN dated September 27,2017, pp. 66-72

TSN dated September 27, 2017, pp. 22,73

Records, Volume 6, pp. 324-326Formal Offer of Evidence, Records, Vol. 6, pp. 336-348


DECISION

24 I P a g e

"3" to

"14"

Unilateral Deeds of Absolute Sale for Lots X-1 to X-5 and X-

8 to X-14 (Exhibits "LLL" to "WWW")

"16" Approval Sheet of AFP-RSBS dated December 10, 1997(Exhibit "A-2")

"17" Confirmation Sheet by the AFP-RSBS Board of Trustees(Exhibit "A-3")

"18" RSBS Investment Control Form (Exhibit "I")"19" Request for Voucher and Check Preparation dated August 12,

1997 (Exhibit "J"

"20" RSBS General Voucher No. 64078 (Exhibit "K")"21" PCI Bank Check No. 423531 dated August 21,1997

(Exhibit "L")

"in di Resolution dated November 6,2017,^^^ this Court admitted accusedRamiscal's Exhibits "2" to "14", and "16" to 21, being common exhibits withthe Prosecution.

In the interim, the prosecution was tasked to verify a report on thepurported death of accused Miguela Cabi-ao per Resolution dated December.5, 2017. To date, the Compliance dated March 19, 2018 submitted by theprosecution averred that verification on the reported death of said accusedyielded a negative result due to insufficiency of information.

For accused Rico Altizo and Johnny Medillo, it is noted that both havebeen under standing warrants of arrest since February 20,2006.^^^

Meantime, accused Flaviano, through counsel, withdrew his priormanifestation regarding the filing of his Demurrer to Evidence without priorleave. He stated that his health has deteriorated to the extent that rendered

him unable to come to court and testify, making it impossible to presentevidence, and that he was thus submitting his Demurrer to Evidence evenwithout leave for this Court's consideration.

Accused Flaviano's Demurrer to Evidence

In his Demurrer to Evidence accused Flaviano averred that the

Prosecution failed to prove that the price paid for each of the lots wasPI0,500.00 per square meter. Albeit unsupported by documentary evidence.Prosecution witness Caroline Mercado testified that the total amoimt paid byAFP-RSBS for the lots was only P93.9 Million, which is less than PI25Million, if the acquisition cost of the lots was at PI 0,500.00 per square meter.The checks presented amounted in total to only P80.9 Million, which was evenless. This indicated a payment of only P6,752.00 per square meter, or only

pp. 390-391

Records, Vol. 7, pp. 152-157

Orders dated February 20, 2006, Records, Vol. 3, pp. 279-A and 279-C"3 Records, Vol. 6, pp. 212-239

Attached to both Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence and Manifestation dated March 8,2017

as Annex "1", Id., pp. 215-234


DECISION

P752.00 more than the zonal value of P6,000.00 per square meter, which wasthe BIR's basis in the computation of capital gains tax.

Accused Flaviano further contended that as of September 24 and 25,1997, the dates of of the Deeds of Sale, only P48,223,750.00 had been paid tothe sellers, or only F4,022.00 per square meter, including incidental expenses.Shorn of these incidental expenses, the price per square meter was not far fromthe F3,000.00 per square meter stated in the Deeds of Sale. Hence, there wasno untruthful narration of facts and no falsification of the Deeds of Sale. In

fact, even Prosecution witness Luwalhati Antonino testified that the amountstated in the Deeds of Sale, i.e., P3,000.00 per square meter, was correct.There being no falsification, there was likewise no undue injury to thegovernment.

Accused Flaviano also argued that conspiracy between himself andaccused Ramiscal and Pabalan has not been proven. It has not been shownthat either accused Ramiscal or Pabalan had the duty to cause the executionof the Deeds of Absolute Sale and to pay taxes, or their actual participationtherein. Their signatures did not even appear in the Deeds of Absolute Sale.Since the capital gains and documentary stamp taxes were to be paid by thesellers, it would not benefit AFP-RSBS to save thereon. The Prosecution'sevidence was not even sufficient to pin down accused Flaviano, since it wasBIR Examiner Conrado Lee, and not Flaviano, who prepared the capital gainstax returns.

Despite the time given to both parties to file their respectivememoranda, only the Prosecution complied

Meanwhile, the cases have been dismissed against the followingvendors: accused Mad Guaybar, Jack Guiwan, Martin Saycon, and JolitoPoralan, whose criminal liability have been extinguished with their deathduring the pendency of these cases.

Accused Wilfredo Pabalan, a public officer, has also succumbed to hisdeath and the charges against him ordered dismissed. Since the chargesagainst accused Flaviano and the other vendors thrived under the theory ofconspiracy, the other public official remaining being accused Ramiscal, let itbe said that the allegation of conspiracy can still be proved. As held in PeopleV. the death of the accused did not extinguish the crime nor did itremove the basis of the charge of conspiracy between him and privateaccused. Indeed, it is not necessary to join all alleged co-conspirators in anindictment for conspiracy. If two or more persons enter into a conspiracy,

/'Records, Vol. 7, pp. 106-118

Mad Guaybar, Jack Guiwan, and Martin Saycon - Resolution dated November 5,2007, Records, Vol. 5, ^p. 125; Jolito Poralan - Order dated September 27,2017, Id., pp. 324-326 (ft

Resolution dated November 23,2016, Records, Vol. 6, p. 123G.R. No. 168539, March 25, 2014


DECISION

any act done by any of them pursuant to the agreement is, in contemplation oflaw, the act of each of them and they are jointly responsible therefor.

THE COURTIS RULING

It is now ironic that the lots subject of these charges have long been thesubject of reversion proceedings by virtue of which, the titles acquired byAFP-RSBS have been cancelled and new ones ordered to be issued in the

name of the Republic of the Philippines.

This Court is not unaware of the Decision of the Supreme Court inRepublic of the Philippines v. AFP Retirement and Separation BenefitsSystem^^^ which declared as null and void the sales patents over Lot X, viz:

' Finally, as regards AFP-RSBS' rights, the Court sustains thepetitioner's view that "any title issued covering non-disposable lots even inthe hands of an alleged innocent purchaser for value shall be cancelled."We deem this case worthy of such principle. Besides, we cannot ignore thebasic principle that a spring cannot rise higher than its source; as successor-in-interest, AFP-RSBS cannot acquire a better title than its predecessor, theherein respondents-intervenors. Having acquired no title to the propertyin question, there is no other recourse but for AFP-RSBS to surrenderto the rightful ownership of the State.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is GRANTED.The October 26,2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.75170 is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The November 5, 2001 Decisionof the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23 of General Santos City in Civil CaseNo. 6419 is REINSTATED.

The Register of Deeds of General Santos City is ordered toCANCEL Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-81051, T-81052, T-81053, T-81054, T-81055, T-81056, T-81057, T-81058, T-81059, T-81060, T-81061, T-81062, T-81146, T-81147, T-81150, and T-81151; andISSUE in lieu thereof, new titles in the name of the Republic of thePhilippines. (Emphasis supplied)

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

TCT Nos. T-81051 to T-81062 corresponded to Lots X-1 to X-5, andX-8 to X-14, respectively.

The cancellation of the TCTs issued to AFP-RSBS, however, does notoperate to extinguish the accused's criminal liability which they incurred upontheir deliberate failure to pay the correct capital gains tax based on the gross

Republic v. AFP Retirement and Separation Benefits System, G.R. No. 180463, January 16,2013 r ̂G.R. No. 180463, January 16, 2013 /Exhibits "Q^-16" to "Q'^-lO-a" J

People V. Jose Ramlscal, Jr., et al. 27 | P a g eCriminal Case Nos. 25i22 to 25145DECISION

selling price presumably received by the seller. Concomitantly, the paymentof documentary stamp tax is always imposed on the exercise of privilegesthrough the execution of specific instruments, independently of the legalstatus of the transactions giving rise thereto

More importantly, the reversion proceeding may be a superveningevent that changed the status of ownership of subject lots but it is not amongthe modes of extinguishing criminal liability under Article 89 of the RevisedPenal Code, viz:

Article 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. - Criminalliability is totally extinguished:

1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties and as topecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished ordy when the deathof the offender occurs before final judgment.

2. By service of the sentence;

3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and allits effects;

4. By absolute pardon;

5. By prescription of the crime;

6. By prescription of the penalty;

7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Article344 of this Code.

The reversion of subject lots to the inalienable and non-disposabledomain of the Republic is thus not a reason to ebb away a judgment in thesecharges.

At the outset, it bears emphasis that Lot X, acquired by the sellersthrough sales patent application, was subdivided into sixteen (16) parts orfrom Lots X-1 to X-16. Lots X-1 to X-5, and X- to X-14, subject of thesecharges, all measured 999 square meters. Lots X-6 and X-7 were the subjectof Deeds of Exchange with AFP-RSBS consenting to the exchange of Lots Y-1-A-l and Y-l-A-2 both owned by AFP-RSBS while Lots X-15 and X-16were exchanged with one office or condo unit to be given or ceded to accusedAtty. hfilo J. Flaviano.^^^

It is also beyond dispute that Lots X-1 to X-5 and X-8 to X-14 wereacquired by AFP-RSBS, as represented by accused Ramiscal, and that in thepurchase of these lots, it was only accused Atty. Nilo Flaviano who was dealt

/,Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Manila Bankers' Life insurance Corporation, G.R. No. 169103, Marcif ̂ '16,2011 ^ Y1^3 S0e Ombudsman Resolution dated January 20,1999, p. 9; Records, Volume 1, p. 12


DECISION

with by AFP-RSBS, having represented the vendors thereof, and who likewisereceived all the payments therefor.

Tainting the sale of subject lots, however, is the execution of whatappears to be two (2) sets of deeds of sale: one, the bilateral Deed ofAbsolute Sale dated August 1, 1997^^"^ for Lots X-1 to X-5 entered intobetween vendors Mad Guaybar, Oliver Guaybar, Jonathan Guaybar, AlexGuaybar, and Jack Guiwan, as represented by Atty. Nile J, Flaviano^ andvendee AFP-RSBS, as represented by accused Ramiscal, for the purchase ofLots X-1 and X-5 at PI 0,500 per square meter; and the other, twelve (12) setsof unilateral Deeds of Absolute Sale dated September 24, 1997^^^ for allsubject lots falsely stating a much lower consideration for the sale than whathas actually been agreed upon, for the purpose of defrauding the governmentof the rightful capital gains and documentary stamp taxes due on said saletransactions. Wiile no bilateral deed of sale was presented for Lots X-8 toX-14, the Agreements between AFP-RSBS and the sellers also point to theacquisition cost of PI0,500 per square meter.

The Informations thus charge all accused with having conspired tofalsify twelve (12) Deeds of Absolute Sale and cause undue injury to thegovernment amoimting to capital gains tax that should have been paid had theDeeds of Absolute Sale truthfully stated the higher consideration for the sale,in violation of Art. 171(4) of the Revised Penal Code which punishes thefalsification of public documents, ̂ d Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019.

Art. 171 (4) of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Art 171, Falsification by public officery employee or notary orecclesiastic minister, - The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not toexceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or

yExhibits "F-14" to "F-17"

Exhibits "ILL" to "WWW" ytAs amended by Repubiic Act No. 10951. The amendment on Article 171, however, imposed a higher (J

penaity on fine, as foilows:

Art. 171. Falsification by pubiic officer, empioyee or notary or ecciesiastic minister.— The penaityof prisidn mayor and a fine not to exceed One million pesos (^1,000,000) shall be imposed upon anypublic officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his of position shali falsify a document bycommitting any of the foliowing acts:

"1. Counterfeiting or using any handwriting, signature or rubric;

"2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they didnot in fact so participate;

"3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other thanthose in fact made by them;

"4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;

XXX

Being so, the same shall not be applied in this case. It is only when a penal statute, substantive andremedial or procedural, is favorable to the accused, that the courts shall give it a retroactive application{People V. Gano, etal., G.R. No. 134373, February 28,2001).

People V. Jose Ramlscal, Jr., et al.Criminal Case Nos. 25122 to 25145DECISION

29 I P a g e

notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall" falsify adocument by committing any of the following acts:

XXX

4. Making untruthfiil statements in a narration of facts.

On the other hand, Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019 provides:

Sec. 3. Corrupt practices ofpublic officers. - In addition to acts oromissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, thefollowing shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and arehereby declared to be unlawful:

XXX

(e) Causing any imdue injury to any party, including theGovernment, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits,,advantage, or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative orjudicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or grossinexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers andemployees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant oflicenses or permits or other concessions.

Fundamental in the resolution of these cases is the determination of

whether the twelve Deeds of Absolute Sale^^^ were indeed falsified in the

manner alleged in the Informations, i.e., stating a purchase price of onlyP3,000.00 per square meter or a total of P2,997,000.00, when in truth, thepurchase price was P10,500.00 per square meter or a total of PI 0,489,500.00.

It appears from the Prosecution's evidence that the sale of Lots X-1 toX-5 was transacted separately from the sale of Lots X-5 to X-14. Below is asummary of the transactions pertaining to the sale of these lots:

Lots Bilateral Contracts/ Agreementsand Date

Payment Received byFlavlano / Date of receipt

Date of Unilateral

Deed of Absolute

Sale

Date of

Issuance of

Title

X-1 to X-5 Contract to Sell'®® 8/1/97 P26,223,750.00 8/1/97

Amendment"® 8/21/97 P7,000,000.00 8/15/97 "' X-1 9/24/97 "2 9/25/97 '23

Second Amendment"^ 9/9/97 PI 5,000,000.00 9/5/97 "5 X-2 9/24/97 "® 9/25/97 "2

Deed of Absolute Sale"® 8/1/97 P4,223,750.00 10/10/97 X-3 9/24/97 '®® 9/25/97'®'

X-4 9/24/97 '®2 9/25/97 '®3

Exhibits "ILL" to "WWW"

Exhibit "F"

Exhibit "6-1"

Exhibit F-9"

Exhibit "L-1"

"2 Exhibit "ILL"

Exhibit "Q'^-IS"

Exhibit "F-12"

"5 Exhibit "Q-1"

Exhibit "MMM"

Exhibit "Q''-16-a"Exhibit "F-14"

Exhibit "V-1"

Exhibit "NNN"

Exhibit "Q^-16-b"Exhibit "000"

Exhibit "Q^-16-c"

//


DECISION

30 I P a g 0

P42.447.snft.ftn X-5 9/24/97 '®^ 9/25/97 '®s

x-8 to x-14 Agreement'®® 12/22/97 PI 5,000,000.00 12/12/97 '®'

Agreement'®® 2/18/98 P10,000,000.00 12/22/97 '®® X-8 9/25/97 "® 9/25/97'"

PI 5,000,000.00 2/18/98 '®2 X-9 9/25/97 9/25/97

P3,000,000.00 3/23/98 '®5 X-10 9/25/97 '®® 9/25/97'®'

P3,000,000.00 3/23/98 '®® X-11 9/25/97'®® 9/25/972®®

PI,000,000.00 4/29/98 201 X-12 9/25/97 2®2 9/25/97 2®3

P500,000.00 5/22/98 2M X-13 9/25/97 2®5 9/25/972®®

P500,000.00 5/27/982®' X-14 9/25/972®® 9/25/972®®

P500,000.00 6/2/982'®

P500,000.00 6/18/982"

P49.ftftft.ftftft.ftft

The Unilateral Deeds of Absolute Salesigned by accused Flaviano were falsified,as the consideration stated therein was

contrary to the agreement between AFP-RSBS and the sellers.

The subject twelve (12) Deeds of Absolute Sale individually anduniformly provide for the transfer of Lots X-1 to X-5 and X-8 to X-14 of thesellers, through accused Flaviano, to AFP-RSBS ̂for and in consideration ofTWO MILLION NINE HUNDRED NINETY SEVEN THOUSAND PESOS

(P2,997,000.00), Philippine Currency, in hand paid by and receipt of which I[referring to accused Flaviano] acknowledge to my entire satisfaction from

I^ Exhibit "PPP"

^ Exhibit "Q^-16-d"

Exhibit "BB"

Exhibit "CC-1"

1®® Exhibit "HH"

^®® Exhibit "GG-1"

Exhibit "QQQ"

Exhibit "Q^-16-e"

Exhibit "NN-1"

Exhibit "RRR"

^ Exhibit "QMe-f

Exhibit "WW-6"

Exhibit "SSS"

1®' Exhibit "Q'»-16-g""® Exhibit "WW-8"

Exhibit "TTT"

2°® Exhibit "Q''-16-h"

Exhibit "BBB-1"

Exhibit "UUU"

2®® Exhibit "Q'*-16-i"

2®^ Exhibit "BBB-2"

2®® Exhibit "WV"

2®® Exhibit

2®^ Exhibit "BBB-3"

2®® Exhibit "WWW"

2®® Exhibit "QM6-k""® Exhibit "BBB-4"

2" Exhibit "BBB-5"

1 y


DECISION

AFP-RETIREMENT AND SEPARATION BENEFITS SYSTEMr^^'^ Theywere signed solely by accused Flaviano, as attomey-in-fact of the sellers.

A perusal of the Prosecution's evidence, however, reveals a contraryagreement between AFP-RSBS and the sellers, through accused Flaviano.First, the individual lots were not sold separately, as the subject Deeds ofAbsolute Sale signify; instead. Lots X-1 to X-5 were collectively dealt, as wellas Lots X-8 to X-14.

A contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of theminds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and the price. Adefinite agreement as to the price is an essential element of a bindingagreement to sell personal or real property because it seriously affects therights and obligations of the parties.^^^

The contracts, agreements, requests, vouchers, and checks signed byAFP-RSBS clearly and consistently show an agreement by the parties on aprice higher than that indicated in the unilateral Deeds of Absolute Sale.

Lots X-1 to X-5 were purchased by AFP-RSBS for PI0,500.00 per square meter.

The acquisition of Lots X-1 to X-5 was approved by the AFP-RSBSBoard of Trustees on May 13,1997.^^"^ It was the subject of a Contract to Selldated August 1,1997^^^ with the following terms:

2. The selling price of the PROPERTIES IS PESOS : TEN THOUSANDFIVE HUNDRED ̂PIO,500.00), Philippine Currency, per square meter, ora total selling price of PESOS : FIFTY TWO MILLION FOURHUNDRED FORTY SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED

0^52,447,500.00), Philippine Currency, based on the total area of FOURTHOUSAND NINE HUNDRED NINETY FIVE (4,995) SQUAREMETERS, payable as follows:

XXX

Consistent with the Contract to Sell, AFP-RSBS paid accused Flavianoa total of P52,447,500.00 in four (4) instalments ifrom August 1, 1997 up toOctober 10,1997. A Deed of Absolute Sale^^^ for the same price was executedby the AFP-RSBS and accused Flaviano on August 1, 1997, consistent withthe condition in the Contract to Sell that the 50% downpayment was due onlyupon the execution of a Deed of Absolute Sale.^^^

Exhibits "LLL" to "WWW" adopted as Exhibits for Ramiscal ^Boston Bank of the Philippines (Formeriy Bank of Commerce) v. Manalo, et ai, G.R. No. 158149, February

9, 2006

Approval Sheet, Exhibit "A"

Exhibits "F" to "F-8"; Joint Special Power of Attorney dated July 30,1997, Exhibit "M""Exhibits "F-14" to "F-17"

Contract to Sell, Exhibit "F" to "F-8", par. 2(a)


DECISION

Clearly, then, the contract that governed the transactions withrespect to Lots X-1 to X-5 were the Contract to Sell and Deed of AbsoluteSale stating the consideration of P52,447,500.00 or P10,500.00 per squaremeter. Consequently, the individual unilateral Deeds of Absolute Sale forLots X-1 to X-5 stated a false consideration of P2,997,000.00, i.e., P3,000.00per square meter, and were clearly falsified.

The consideration for Lots X-8 to X-14 was

likewise P10.500 per square meter.

Unlike with Lots X-1 to X-5, there is no Contract to Sell or Deed ofAbsolute Sale presented in evidence for the sale of Lots X-8 to X-14.

However, agreements and correspondences between accused Flavianoand the RSBS, as well as the AFP-RSBS' disbursement documents tell a verydifferent story from that told by the unilateral Deeds of Absolute Sale.

While the unilateral Deeds of Absolute Sale state a consideration ofP2,997,000.00 per lot, it is very clear from the evidence that AFP-RSBS andaccused Flaviano agreed on a consideration of PI 0,500.00 per square meteror P73,426,500.00 for Lots X-8 to X-4, as evidenced by the following:

a. In two (2) Agreements dated December 22, 1997^*® andFebruary 18,1998,^^^ wherein the vendors undertook to relocate the informalsettlers and to clear the property of existing structures, there are similarly-worded whereas clauses that state:

"WHEREAS, the VENDORS, through its duly authorized Attomey-in-Fact, ATTY. NILO J. FLAVIANO, executed a Deed of Absolute Saleover seven (7) parcels of land identified as Lots X-8, X-9, X-10, X-11, X-12, X-13 and X-14, MR-1160-D, Amd. 13, containing an area of SIXTHOUSAND NINE HUNDRED NINETY THREE (6,993) SQUAREMETERS, more or less, hereinafter referred to as the "PROPERTIES", fora consideration in the amount of PESOS: SEVENTY THREE MILLION

FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY SIX THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED

^73,426,500.00), Philippine Currency, in favor of the VENDEE,(emphases supplied)

b. In a Disposition Form dated February 23, 1998,^^° accusedPabalan reported:

2. Per reference the amount of P15M was released to Atty. Flaviano aspartial payment for the acquisition of Lots X-8 to X-14 in Purok Islam,General Santos City, the PI OM of which was disbursed in staggered amountthru electronic banking facility while the P5M was released in the form oftwo checks simultaneous with the signing of an Agreement. Out of the totalacquisition price of P73,426,500.00 for the seven (7) lots, a total of

Exhibit "BB"

Exhibit "HH"

220 Exhibit "PP"

People V. Jose Ramiscal, Jr., et al. 33 | P a g eCriminal Case Nos. 25122 to 25145DECISION

P40,000,000.00 was already released as partial payment, thus leaving abalance of P33,426,500.00 to fully pay the said lots, (emphasis supplied)

c. In a Disposition Form dated June 29, 1998,^^^ accused Pabalanagain reported:

2. Per reference 1^ the amount of P6M was released to Atty. Nilo J. Flavianoas partial payment for the acquisition of Lots X-8 to X-14 in Purok Islam,General Santos City, the P5.5M of which was disbursed in partial releasesthru electronic banking facility while the remaining P500,000 was releasedright in General Santos simultaneous with the signing of an Agreement.Payments for the acquisition of Lot X is summarized as follows:

Total Acquisition Price P73,426,500.00Less: Payments made to date (incl. Marbella account) 51.700.00.00Remaining balance to fully pay the properties P21.726.500.00

While the evidence did not show whether Lots X-8 to X-14 have been

fully paid for F73,426,500.00, as shown in the table above, as of June 18,1998, however, accused Flaviano has already received P49,000,000.00 forLots X-8 to X-14. Aside jfrom this amount, two checks^^^ totallingF500,000.00 were disbursed in August 1998,^^^ bringing the total amountdisbursed by AFP-RSBS for Lots X-8 to X-14 to P49,500,000.00 as of August1998.

At P3,000.00 per square meter or P2,997,000.00 per lot, the seven (7)lots would cost only P20,979,000.00, which clearly could not have been theintention of the parties who transacted on the very same lots for at leastP49,500,000.00. Indubitably, the individual unilateral Deeds of Absolute Salecovering Lots X-8 to X-14 are likewise falsified as it clearly failed to reflectthe actual purchase price of subject lots.

The false statement of a lower considerationunder the unilateral Deeds of Sale was forthe purpose of evading the payment ofproper taxes on the sale of Lots X-1 to X-5and X-8 to X-14.

The subject transactions were entered into in 1997 when the NationalInternal Revenue Code of 1977 (1977 NIRC) was in effect. It provides:

SECTION 21. Tax on citizens or residents. — (a) Taxablecompensation income. —

XXX / ,

' JExhibit "CCC"

^ Check No.l 432161 dated August 12, 1998, Exhibit "FFF"; Check No. 432200 dated August 14, 1998,Exhibit "FFF-1"223 iviq acknowledgment receipt


(e) Capital gainsfrom sales ofreal property. — The provisionsof Section 34 (b) notwithstanding, capital gains presumed to have beenrealized from the sale, exchange or other disposition of real propertylocated in the Philippines classified as capital assets, including pacto deretro sales and other forms of conditional sales, by individuals, includingestates and trusts, shall be taxed at the rate of 5% based on the gross sellingprice or the fair market value prevailing at the time of sale, whicheveris higher. Provided, That the tax liability, if any, on gains firom sales orother dispositions of real property to the government or any of its politicalsubdivisions or agencies or to government-owned or controlledcorporations shall be determined either under Section 21 (a) or under thissub-section, at the option of the taxpayer.

XXX

Documentary Stamp Tax

SECTION 173, Stamp taxes upon documents, instruments,loan agreements, and papers, — Upon documents, instruments, loanagreements, and papers, and upon acceptances, assignments, sales andtransfers of the obligation, right, or property incident thereto, there shall belevied, collected and paid for, and in respect of the transaction so had oraccomplished, the corresponding documentary stamp taxes prescribed inthe following sections of this Title, by the person making, signing,issuing, accepting, or transferring the same wherever the document ismade, signed, issued, accepted, or transferred when the obligation or rightarises firom Philippine sources or the property is situated in the Philippines,and at the same time such act is done or transaction had: Provided, Thatwhenever one party to the taxable document enjoys exemption firom the taxherein imposed, the other party thereto who is not exempt shall be the onedirectly liable for the tax.

XXX

SECTION 196, Stamp tax on deeds of sale and conveyanceof real property. — On all conveyances, deeds, instruments, or writings,other than grants, patents, or original certificates of adjudication issued bythe Government, whereby any lands, tenements or other realty sold shallbe granted, assigned, transferred, or otherwise conveyed to thepurchaser, or purchasers, or to any other person or persons designated bysuch purchaser or purchasers, there shall be collected a documentary stamptax at the following rates:

(a) When the consideration, or value received or contractedto be paid for such realty, after making proper allowance ofany encumbrance, does not exceed one thousand pesos.Fifteen pesos (PI5.00).

(b) For each additional one thousand pesos, or firactional partthereof in excess of one thousand pesos of suchconsideration or value. Fifteen pesos (PI5.00).

When it appears that the amount of the documentary stamp taxpayable hereunder has been reduced by an incorrect statement, of theconsideration in any conveyance, deed, instruments, or writing subject tosuch tax the Commissioner, provincial or city treasurer, or other revenue

'I


DECISION

officer shall from the assessment rolls or other reliable source of

information, assess the property of its true market value and collect theproper tax thereon, (emphases supplied)

As defined under Sec. 21(e) of the 1977 NIRC, Capital Gains Tax isimposed on capital gains presumed to have been realized from the sale,exchange or other disposition of real property. Under the law, the sellers havethe obligation to pay the capital gains tax.^^"^ On the other hand.Documentary Stamp Tax is levied on the exercise of certain privilegesgranted by law for the creation, revision, or termination of specific legalrelationships through the execution of specific instruments.^^^ Sec. 173provides that it is payable by the person making, signing, issuing, accepting,or transferring the property; in these cases, also the sellers. Notably, underthe Contract to Sell Lots X-1 to X-5, "[t]he broker's commission, capital gainstax and documentary stamps, registration fees, transfer tax and other expensesrequired for the registration of the Deed of Absolute Sale in the Registry ofDeeds and the transfer of titles in the name of the VENDEE shall be for the

account of the VENDORS."^^^

Thus, the sellers, represented by accused Flaviano, were liable for thefollowing amoimts in Capital Gains and Documentary Stamp Taxes based onthe actual consideration of the sale of Lots X-1 to X-5 and X-8 to X-14:

Lots X-1 to X-5

Gross selling price of 5 lots (4,995 sqm) = P52,447,500.00Gross selling price per lot (999 sqm) = H 0,489,500.00Gross selling price per square meter = PI0,500.00

Capital Gains Tax (CGT)(5% of Gross Selling Price)

Documentary Stamp Tax (DST)^15 per PI,000 of Gross

Selling Price)Tax due per lot P524,475.00 PI 57,342.50

Lots X-8 to X-14

Gross selling price of 7 lots (6,993 sqm) = P73,426,500.00Gross selling price per lot (999 sqm) = PI0,489,500.00Gross selling price per square meter = PI0,500.00

Tax due per lot P524,475.00 P157,342.50

Under the unilateral Deeds of Absolute Sale, only the followingamoimts in taxes were due:

/ySpouses Tongson v. Emergenqf Pawnshop Bula, Inc., eta!., G.R. No. 167874, January 15,2010

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Manila Bankers'Life insurance Corporation, G.R. No. 169103, iVIarch16,2011

Par. 5, Contract to Sell dated August 1,1997, Exhibits "F" to "F-8"


DECISION

Gross selling price per lot (999 sqm) = P2,997,000.00Gross selling price per square meter = P3,000.00

CGT DST

Tax due per lot P149,850.00 P44,955.00

The unilateral Deeds of Absolute Sale for Lots X-1 to X-5 bearing alower consideration were executed on September 24, 1997, or after theexecution of both the Contract to Sell and Deed of Absolute Sale by bothparties on August 1, 1997 bearing the real consideration. This begs thequestion: What were the unilateral Deeds of Absolute Sale for?

The answer may be found in the coffers of the Register of Deeds, wherethese unilateral Deeds of Absolute Sale were recorded, and where the rightfulcontract stating the actual consideration should have been.

Sec. 49(a)(4) of the 1977 NIRC provides in part:

X X X No registration of any document transferring real property shallbe effected by the Register of Deeds unless the Commissioner of IntemalRevenue or his duly authorized representative has certified that suchtransfer has been reported, and the tax herein imposed, if any, has beenpaid.

The unilateral Deeds of Absolute Sale were executed by accusedFlaviano on September 24, 1997, a day before the titles were transferred toAFP-RSBS, and were used for no other purpose than for the payment of therequisite taxes to effect such transfer. Clearly, there is no otiher conclusionthan that these unilateral Deeds of Absolute Sale bearing a much lowerconsideration were executed, for the sole purpose of lowering the taxes dueon the sale of Lots X-1 to X-5.

On the other hand, unlike for Lots X-1 to X-5, there is no evidence ofany Contract to Sell or Deed of Absolute Sale entered into between AFP-RSBS and the sellers with respect to Lots X-8 to X-14 prior or subsequent tothe execution by accused Flaviano of the unilateral Deeds of Absolute Salefor these lots on September 25,1997. On the same date, a TCT was issued inthe name of AFP-RSBS.^^^ This was before any payment could be made onLots X-8 to X-14,^^^ contrary to the statement in Ae Deeds of Absolute Saletransferring the subject lots ^for and in consideration of F2,997,000.00,Philippine Currency, in hand paid and receipt of which I acknowledge to myentire satisfaction from AFP-RETIREMENT AND SEPARATION BENEFITSSYSTEMX X x". The unilateral Deeds of Absolute Sale for Lots X-8 to X-14

were executed only a day after the execution of the Deeds of Absolute Sale

/,i.e.. Capital Gains Tax228 Exhibits "Q'*-16-e" to "Q^-16-k"228 first Acknowiedgement Receipt with Memorandum Appiication of Payment as Amended was datedDecember 12,1997 (Exhibit "CC-1")


DECISION

37 I P a g e

for Lots X-1 to X-5, and for the exact same consideration, which, however,would later be shown to be false. As already foimd and explained above, theconsideration for Lots X-8 to X-14 was also PI0,500.00 per square meter.

As with the unilateral Deeds of Sale for Lots X-1 to X-5, the unilateralDeeds of Absolute Sale for Lots X-8 to X-14 were submitted to the BIR and

were part of the records of the Register of Deeds, as having been among therequisites for the transfer of titles of these lots, clearly establishing that theywere executed by accused Flaviano for the sole purpose of evading the properpayment of taxes.

From the foregoing, the obvious intention was to be able to transfer thetitle of the subject properties from the sellers to the AFP-RSBS without payingthe proper taxes due, and the considerable discrepancy in the selling pricescorresponded to the amount that should have been paid to the government intaxes but never made it there.

Had accused Flaviano successfully gotten past the BIR on thedeclaration in the unilateral Deed of Absolute Sale that the twelve lots were

sold for only P2,997,000.00 each, the government would have lost the totalamount ofP5,844J50.00 in unpaid taxes, thus:

CGT perlot

DST per lot Total Total for 12 lots

Gross Selling Price P524,475.00 P157,342.50 P681,817.50 P8,181,810.00Declared Selling Price P149,850.00 P44,955.00 P194,805.00 P2,337,660.00Difference P374,625.00 PI 12,387.50 P487,012.50 P5.844.150.00

As it turned out, however, upon reaching BIR Examiner Conrado Lee,the documents submitted by accused Flaviano lacked a Capital Gains TaxReturn, prompting Lee to prepare the Capital Gains Tax Returns for theproperties, and computing the taxes due based on the zonal value of P6,000.00per square meter, which was higher than the declared selling Becauseof this, instead of the intended discrepancy, the total loss of the governmentin unpaid taxes decreased to P3,506,490.00 or P292,207.50 per lot, as allegedin the Informations, arid computed as follows:

Zonal value per sqm = P6,000.000Zonal value of the lots (999 sqm) = P5,994,000.00

CGT perlot

DST per lot Total Total for 12 lots

Gross Selling Price P524,475.00 PI 57,342.50 P681,817.50 P8,181,810.00Zonal Value P299,700.00 P89,910.00 P389,610.00 P4,675,320.00

Difference P224,775.00 P67,432.50 P292.207.50 P3.506.490.00

230 TSN dated April 18, 2007, pp. 46-50 // ' ̂


DECISION

The undervaluation of the selling price operated to defraud thegovernment of the taxes due on the basis of the correct purchase price?^*Clearly, through the falsification of the twelve (12) unilateral Deeds of Sale,the government was defrauded in the amount of P292,207.50 per lot or a totalof P3,506,490.00. Had it not been for the intervention of the BIR, thegovernment would have been defrauded of a heftier sum.

The question now for this Court's resolution is whether the participantsto the sale, ie., accused Ramiscal and Pabalan of AFP-RSBS, the buyer, theindividual sellers, and their Attomey-in-fact, accused Flaviano, should be heldcriminally liable for the falsification of the unilateral Deeds of Absolute Sale,and for using this to cause undue injuiy to the government in the amount ofunpaid taxes.

Accused Ramiscal and Pabalan of AFP-RSBS and accused Flaviano conspired tofalsify the unilateral Deeds of Absolute Salefor the purpose of lowering the acquisitioncost of subject lots, thus effecting a lowerpayment of capital gains and documentarystamp taxes. The lower payment of capitalgains and documentary stamp taxesindubitably caused undue injury to thegovernment

The obvious perpetrator of this fraud is accused Flaviano, who, at firstblush, would seem to have been able to do so all on his own; after all, AFP-RSBS was not a party to the subject Deeds of Absolute Sale. However, acareful study of the evidence would point to a different conclusion. There wasno way accused Flaviano could have successfully caused the registration ofthe properties in the name of AFP-RSBS on the strength of the falsifiedunilateral Deeds of Absolute Sale without the participation of accusedRamiscal and Pabalan.

The accused are charged with Falsification of Public Documents underArt. 171 (4) of the Revised Penal Code and Violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A.3019. This is for falsifying the Deeds of Absolute Sale by stating a lowerselling price, with the intent of causing imdue injury to the government in theamount of the proper taxes that should have been paid.

As the act of falsification is inseverable from its purpose of evadingtaxes, this Court shall discuss the existence of the elements of both crimes

0

jointly.

The elements of the crimes charged are as follows:

231 Cf. Sps. Tongson v. Emergency Pawnshop Bula, G.R. No. 167874, January 15,2010


DECISION

39 I P a g e

Falsification under

Art 171(4) of the Revised Penal CodeViolation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019

a) the offender makes in a public documentuntruthful statements in a narration of facts;

b) he has a legal obligation to disclose the truthof the facts narrated by him; and

c) the facts narrated by him are absolutelyfalse.^^^

a) that the accused is a public officer or a privateperson charged in conspiracy with the former;

b) that said public officer commits the prohibitedacts during the performance of his or herofScial duties or in relation to his or her

public positions;

c) that he or she causes undue injury to anyparty, whether the government or a privateparty; and

d) that the public officer has acted with manifestpartiality, evident bad &ith or grossinexcusable negligence.^^

The subject Deeds of Absolute Sale are public

documents.

Art. 1358 of the Civil Code requires the execution in a public documentof contracts which transmit or extinguish real rights over immovableproperty.^^"^The notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a publicdocument, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of itsauthenticity.^^^ The notarized Deeds of Absolute Sale, which purported totransmit the ownership of the subject lots to AFP-RSBS are, thus, publicdocuments.

Accused Ramiscal and Pabalan are publicofficers, and AFP-RSBS used public funds topurchase Lots X-1 to X'4 and X-8 to X-14.

A public officer is defined in the Revised Penal Code as any personwho, by direct provision of the law, popular election or appointment bycompetent authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions inthe Government of the Philippine Islands, or shall perform in said Governmentor in any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent or subordinateofficial, of any rank or class.^^^ Under R.A. 3019, it includes elective andappointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in theclassified or unclassified or exempt service receiving compensation, evennominal, firom the govemment.^^^

/Fullero v. People, G.R. No. 170583, September 12,2007Guy V. People, G.R. Nos. 166794-96,166880-82,167088-90, March 20, 2009Art. 1358. The following must appear in a public document:

(1) Acts and contracts which have for their object the creation, transmission,modification or extinguishment of real rights over immovable property; sales of realproperty or of an interest therein are governed by Articles 1403, No. 2 and 1405

Gonzales v. Ramos, A.C. No. 6649, June 21,2005^ Art. 203, Revised Penal Code.

Sec. 2(b), R.A. 3019

7

People V. Jose Ramlscal, Jr., et al. 40 | P a g eCriminal Case Nos. 25122 to 25145DECISION

At the time of the commission of the offenses, accused Ramiscal wasthe President of the now-defunct^^® AFP-RSBS,^^^ and accused Pabalan wasthe Project Director of the AFP-RSBS' GenSan Project.^'^® In People v.Sandiganbayan, et the Supreme Court explained:

The AFP-RSBS was created by Presidential Decree No. 361. Itspurpose and functions are akin to those of the GSIS and the SSS, as in factit is the system that manages the retirement and pension funds of those inthe military service. Members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines andthe Philippine National Police are expressly excluded from the coverage ofThe GSIS Act of 1997. Therefore, soldiers and military personnel, who areincidentally employees of the Government, rely on the administration of theAFP-RSBS for their retirement, pension and separation benefits. For thispuipose, the law provides that die contribution by military officers andenlisted personnel to the System shall be compulsory, thus:

XXX

In connection with the Sandiganbayan's finding that the funds of theAFP-RSBS, except for the initial seed money, come entirely fromcontributions and that no part thereof come from appropriations. Section 2of P.D. 361 states:

SECTION 2. The System shall be funded as follows:

(a) Appropriations and contributions;(b) Donations, gift, legacies, bequest and others to the System;(c) All earnings of the System which shall not be subject to any tax

whatsoever.

Indeed, the clear import of the above-quoted provision is that, whileit may be true that there have been no appropriations for the contribution offunds to the AFP-RSBS, the Government is not precluded from later onadding to the funds in order to provide additional benefits to the men inuniform.

The above considerations indicate that the character and operationsof the AFP-RSBS are imbued with public interest. As such, we hold thatthe same is a government entity and its funds are in the nature of publicfunds, (emphasis supplied)

Given the public character and operations of AFP-RSBS, therefore,accused Ramiscal and accused Pabalan are public officers at the time theywere connected with AFP-RSBS as President and Project Director of theGenSan Project, respectively, during the purchase of subject properties inGeneral Santos City.

U^ Executive Order No. 590 - Deactivating the Armed Forces of the Philippines Retirement and Separation fJBenefits System by 31 December 2006, Directing the Transfer of its Assets in Trust to a Government •

Financial Institution, and for other Purposes23® TSN dated March 3,2011, p. 45

pp. 14-15

G.R. No. 145951, August 12, 2003


DECISION

The evidence would show that both accused Ramiscal and Pabalan had

a hand in the disbursement of public funds for the purchase of Lots X-1 to X-5 and X-8 to X-14. Accused Pabalan issued Disposition Formsrecommending the approval of disbursements for the purchase of the lots,verified Investment Control Forms, which initiated the disbursement process,and recommended the approval of the Requests for Voucher and CheckPreparation. Accused Ramiscal signed the contracts in behalf of AFP-RSBS,and approved the disbursements for payment.^"^^

The titles to Lots X-1 to X-5 and X-8 to X-14 were transferred in the

name of AFP-RSBS on September 25, 1997. As discussed above, theregistration of the titles in the name of AFP-RSBS was tainted withirregularity inasmuch as the proper taxes were not paid in relation thereto. Ascrutiny of the transactions that transpired in the purchase of Lots X-1 to X-5,on the one hand, and X-8 to X-14, on the other, leads this Court to no otherconclusion than that accused Ramiscal and Pabalan not only knew about thisirregularity perpetrated by accused Flaviano, but were instrumental thereto.

Sale of Lots X-1 to X-5

The unilateral Deeds of Sale for Lots X-1 to X-5 were executed on

September 24,1997, and the titles transferred to AFP-RSBS the next day, oron September 25, 1997, However, prior to this, or on August 1, 1997, AFP-RSBS and accused Flaviano, in behalf of the sellers, already executed aContract to SelF"*^ and Deed of Absolute Sale^"^ for these lots.

The Contract to Sell placed the duty of causing the transfer of the titleas well the payment of the capital gains and documentary stamp taxes, amongother fees, on the sellers, as represented by accused Flaviano.^"^^ In fact, intwo amendments to the Contract to Sell,^"^^ the parties agreed, after the initialpayment of P26,223,750.00 representing 50% of the selling price, onadditional pajmients amounting to a total of P22,000,000.00 "to defrayexpenses for the immediate release of the titles in the name of [AFP-RSBS]."V^ile accused Flaviano appeared to have fulfilled his undertaking under dieContract of Sale, and successfully caused the transfer of titles in the name ofAFP-RSBS, this was not done in accordance with law. Notwithstanding theexistence of a Deed of Absolute Sale stating the rightful consideration of thesale of Lots X-1 to X-5, and to evade the payment of proper taxes, accusedFlaviano, on his own, executed separate Deeds of Absolute Sale for Lots X-1to X-5 stating a much lower consideration of ]^,997,000.00 per lot orP3,000.00 per square meter, which he submitted to the BIR for the payment

/ ̂2^2 Exhibits "E", "B", "C", "D", "F", etseq., "H", "i", "J", "P", "O", "U", "S", "T", "AA", "X", "Y", "Z", "88",

"HH", "FF", 'EE", "DD", "LL", "JJ", "NN-6", "KK", "li", "H", "WW", "PP", "WW-4", "QQ", "W", "RR", "UU", /"CCC", "EEE", "ODD" ^2^3 Exhibits "F" to "F-8" I2-" Exhibits "F-14" to "F-17"

2'*5 Par. 3, Contract to Sell, Exhibits "F" to "F-6"2'» Exhibits "F-9" to "F-11", "F-12" to "F-13-a"


DECISION

of capital gains and documentary stamp taxes as a requisite to the transfer oftitle.

Having already entered into a Contract to Sell and signed a Deed ofAbsolute Sale for the purchase of Lots X-1 to X-4, and having left it up toaccused Flaviano to settle the taxes and transfer the title in the name of AFP-

RSBS, accused Ramiscal and Pabalan could be assumed to have no inkling ofaccused Flaviano's scheme; after all, the latter was able to successfullytransfer the title in the name of AFP-RSBS.

This, however, is clearly not the case.

As a requisite to the payment of the balance of the purchase price, theContract to Sell provides:

b) The balance of PESOS : TWENTY SIX MILLION TWOHUNDRED TWENTY THREE THOUSAND SEVEN

HUNDRED FIFTY (26,223,750.00), Philippine Currency,or fifty percent (50%) of the total selling price payable afterthirty (30) days from the signing of this Agreement and thecompliance of the following conditions:

b.l) Submission of the owner'scopy of the Transfer Certificate of Titlealready in the name of the VENDEEtogether with the Tax Declaration, taxreceipts, and tax clearance of thePROPERTIES herein sold

XXX

In his testimony, accused Ramiscal did not waver in declaring that thepurchase price of the subject properties was PI0,500.00 per square meter.^'*^The evidence would likewise show that after the issuance of TCTs in the name

of AFP-RSBS on April 25,1997,^"^^ AFP-RSBS paid the last instalment on thelots in the amount of P4,223,750.00 on October 10, Pursuant to theContract to Sell, accused Flaviano should have, by then, submitted thedocuments showing the payment of capital gains and documentary stamptaxes, which would have shown the payment of a measly P299,700.00 incapital gains tax and P89,910.00 in documentary stamp tax per lot, or a totalof only PI,948,050 for five lots costing P52,447,500.00. Knowing full wellthe actual selling price of the Lots X-1 to X-5; having paid P22,000,000.00 asrequested by accused Flaviano for the transfer of titles, which turned out tohave cost a miniscule fraction thereof; and presumably aiming at impeccabledocumentation in order to ensure the peaceful ownership of the properties,AFP-RSBS would not have closed its eyes to the grossly insufficientpayment of capital gains and documentary stamp taxes. And yet, this

dated March 3,2011, pp. 57-58

Exhibits "Q^-16"to "Q^-16-d"

24' Check No. 430004, Exhibit "V" 9,


DECISION

Court has found no evidence of any effort on the part of AFP-RSBS to rectifythis blatant transgression. Instead, it went on to folly pay for the properties.

Accused Ramiscal, folly aware of the clause in the Contract to Sell hesigned in behalf of AFP-RSBS that required the submission of tax receiptsbefore the foil payment of the purchase price, approved the final pajmient withnary an attempt to rectify the grossly insufficient payment of capital gains anddocumentary stamp taxes, which, by said time, he already knew of. Neitheris there evidence that he sought an explanation from accused Flaviano for suchunderpayment or demanded an accounting thereof.

For his part, accused Pabalan, as Project Manager of the GenSanProject, had no excuse to be oblivious to the minutest details of the Project hewas managing. Aware of the underpayment of taxes, he still verified theInvestment Control Form necessary for foe disbursement of foe final paymentfor Lots X-1 to X-5, and recommended foe approval of foe Request forVoucher and Check Preparation therefor.

Accused Ramiscal and Pabalan, in foe performance of their duties asPresident of AFP-RSBS and foe Project Manager of its GenSan Project, notonly consented to accused Flaviano's schemes, but by their inaction on hisexploits, condoned foe defi*audation of foe government. While it has beenheld that mere knowledge, acquiescence or approval is not enough to proveconspiracy, this is when there is failure to show that foe participation wasintentional and with a view of furthering a common criminal design orpurpose.^^® Accused Ramiscal and Pabalan, in disbursing public funds,already with the knowledge that foe proper taxes had not been paid, had foeduty to rectify this blatant violation of law. Instead, they did nothing, andeven proceeded to make foe final payment on Lots X-1 to X-5 as thougheverything was in order. Accused Ramiscal and Pabalan's inaction wasindicative of their intentional participation in accused Flaviano's schemes,and their common criminal design. Prompt and proper action on their partwould have made it impossible for accused Flaviano to carry out his ploy; foereverse is also true - in failing to so act, they proved to be willing participantstherein.

Sale of Lots X-8 to X-14

The participation of accused Ramiscal and Pabalan in foeunderpayment of capital gains and documentary stamp taxes is even moremanifest in foe sale of Lots X-8 to X-14.

The unilateral Deeds of Absolute Sale of these properties were datedSeptember 25, 1997,^^^ the same day that foe titles to these properties were

o^ Umlpig V. People, G.R. Nos. 171359,171755, and 171776, July 18, 2012 ' yExhibits "QQQ" to "WWW" '

People V. Jose Ramlscal, Jr., et al. 44 | P a g eCriminal Case Nos. 25122 to 25145DECISION

transferred in the name of AFP-RSBS.^^^ However, unlike in Lots X-1 to X-5, there is no evidence of any prior bilateral agreement with respect to the saleof these properties.

In a Disposition Form dated December 1, 1997,^^^ accused Pabalanrelated:

1. Attached is the letter of Atty. Flaviano requesting for Ten Million Pesosas partial payment of the System for lots X-8 to X-14 to temporarilysatisfy the claims of his clients for payment of said lots.

2. The titles of these lots are already in the name and in the possessionof AFPRSBS. (emphases supplied)

XXX

In an Agreement dated December 22, 1997^^"^ signed by accusedRamiscal in behalf of AFP-RSBS and accused Flaviano, it was stated:

WHEREAS, the VENDORS, through its duly authorized Attomey-in-Fact, ATTY. NILO J. FLAVIANO, executed a Deed of Absolute Saleover seven (7) parcels of land identified as Lots X-8, X-9, X-10, X-11, X-12, X-13, qnd X-14, MR-1160-D, Amd. 13, containing an area of SIXTHOUSAND NINE HUNDRED NINETY THREE (6,993) SQUAREMETERS, more or less, hereinafter referred to as the "PROPERTIES" fora consideration in the amount of PESOS: SEVENTY THREE MILLION

FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY SDC THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED

(P73,426,500.00), Philippine Currency, in favor of the VENDEE.

WHEREAS, the amount of PESOS: FIFTEEN MILLIONOP15,000,000.00), Philippine Currency, has been duly paid asdownpayment for the said PROPERTIES, thereby leaving a bdance ofPESOS: FIFTY EIGHT MILLION FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY SIX

THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED ̂58,426,500.00), Philippine Cuirency.

WHEREAS, as a consideration for the full payment of the totalconsideration, the VENDORS obligated unto themselves to relocate the •squatters and their families in the PROPERTIES and to free thePROPERTIES from any third party claims including the obligation todefend the rights of the VENDEE against third party claims.

WHEREAS, the VENDORS had requested for an additionaldownpayment equivalent to PESOS: TEN MILLION ̂ 10,000,000.00),Philippine Currency, considering that partial relocation of the squatters inthe PROPERTIES has been effected and to which the VENDEE has agreedthus leaving a balance of PESOS: FORTY EIGHT MILLION FOURHUNDRED TWENTY SIX THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED

^48,426,500.00) Philippine Currency, as full payment of thePROPERTIES.

i.rJ252 Exhibits "Q^-16-e" to "Q'^-lS-k" / ̂253 Exhibit "X"

254 Exhibit "BB"


DECISION

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoingpremises and the covenants hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto agree asfollows:

1. That the VENDORS hereby acknowledge the receipt of thepayment from the VENDEE the additional amount of PESOS: TENMILLION (PI0,000,000.00), Philippine Currency, thus bringing to atotal amount of PESOS: TWENTY FIVE MILLION (P25,000,000.00),Philippine Currency, as partial consideration of the PROPERTIES, thusleaving a balance of the purchase price in the amount of PESOS: FORTYEIGHT MILLION FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY SDC THOUSAND

FIVE HUNDRED (P48,426,500.00), Philippine Currency, to fully paythe PROPERTIES from the total consideration in the amount of PESOS:

SEVENTY THREE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY SIX

THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED (P73,426,500.00), Philippine Currency.

2. That in consideration of the full payment of the totalconsideration, the VENDORS hereby obligate themselves to relocate thesquatters and their families in the PROPERTIES and to clear thePROPERTIES from any form of structures including the Mosque, andthe obligation to defend the rights of the VENDEE against third partyclaims, x x x

Based on the Agreement, the downpayment for Lots X-8 to X-14 wasonly received in December 1997, as confirmed by accused Flaviano'sAcknowledgment Receipt dated December 12, 1997.^^^ The acquisition ofLots X-8 to X-14 was "confirmed" by the Board of Trustees only onDecember 10,1997.^^^ Logically, on September 25,1997, or the date thatthe unilateral Deeds of Absolute Sale were executed by accused Flaviano,*and titles were transferred in the name of AFP-RSBS, no payment haseven been made for Lots X-8 to X-14.

Accused Pabalan, as Project Manager, and accused Ramiscal, AFP-RSBS President, could not have been blind as to why there were titles in thename of AFP-RSBS, when no payment has yet been made for Lots X-8 to X-14. The fact alone that the titles of the lots were already in the name of AFP-RSBS without any payment having been made, and without a written contractto this effect, strongly indicates an agreement between accused Pabalan andRamiscal, acting in behalf of AFP-RSBS, and accused Flaviano, acting inbehalf of the sellers, as to the transfer of these titles. In fact, accused Ramiscalhimself revealed that the agreement was to '^transfer to AFP-RSBS the titlebefore payment can be mader"^^"^ Clearly, titles could not have passed fromone party to the other except on terms acceptable to both parties,especially since one of the parties was a government entity.

Indeed, the titles to Lots X-8 to X-14 were registered in the name ofAFP-RSBS after the payment of taxes to the BIR on the basis of the unilateral

25= Exhibit "CC-l". a *255 Approval Sheet, Exhibit "A-2" 9 rJ *252TSNdatedJune29,2017,p. 16 / ̂


DECISION

Deeds of Absolute Sale stating a lower selling price. That these were nevermeant to govern the sale of Lots X-8 to X-14 but only to serve as basis for thepayment of taxes necessary in transferring the titles is betrayed by thesubsequent agreements and acts of both parties indicating that the selling pricewas PI 0,500.00, as already discussed. Thereafter, accused Ramiscal andPabalan were involved in the disbursement of funds for the payment of thishigher price, knowing full well that the AFP-RSBS has derived titles from thepayment of taxes based on a lower declared selling price under the falsifiedDeeds of Absolute Sale.

Among the instruments signed by AFP-RSBS and Flaviano were the"Agreements''^^® alluding to "a Deed of Absolute Sale" executed by accusedFlaviano over the seven lots. An exhaustive examination of the evidence,however, reveals no such Deed of Absolute Sale existed covering all sevenlots. In fact, in the Investment Control Forms signed by accused Pabalan,where the accompanying documents were listed, there was never any mentionof a Deed of Absolute Sale, but only the "Agreements". Ironically, whilethese "Agreements" mentioned of a purported Deed of Absolute Sale for allseven lots, a perusal thereof would show that partial payments started only inDecember 1997, which paints an absurd picture of a Deed of Sale beingexecuted when no payment has actually been made. Certainly, accusedFlaviano would not have made it appear that full payment has already beenmade by AFP-RSBS when it has not paid anything, without a prior agreementhaving been made by the parties.

It has also not escaped the attention of this Court that by the time thetitles to Lots X-8 to X-14 were transferred to AFP-RSBS, the parties havealready transacted with respect to Lots X-1 to X-5, which, incidentally, wereregistered in the name of AFP-RSBS on the very same day as Lots X-8 to X-14 were registered, and on the basis of falsified Deeds of Absolute Sale statingan identical lower selling price.^^^ Inevitably, accused Ramiscal andPabalan's evident participation in the falsification of the unilateral Deeds ofAbsolute Sale for Lots X-8 to X-14 to evade taxes gives this Court a glimpseof their state of mind with regard to the falsification of the unilateral Deeds ofAbsolute Sale for Lots X-1 to X-5, and fortifies this Court's finding thataccused Ramiscal and Pabalan indeed participated, every inch of the way, inthe falsification of the selling price affecting Lots X-1 to X-5.

The palpable lack of bilateral contracts detailing how payment was tobe made on these lots and when the titles were to be transferred, and theobvious yet futile attempt to make it appear that such contracts existed betrayan irregularity that accused Ramiscal and Pabalan were clearly part of, albeitthe attempt to conceal it. V

h/'Exhibits "BB" and "HH"

253 Exhibits "i^" "i^-7," "1^-14," "i^-21," "i^-28," "i^-35," "lM2," "iM9," "i^-56," "i^^-SB," "i^-70," and "i^-77"


DECISION

One need not require a separate concrete act to show the conspiratoriallink in these charges. The irregularity is highly discernible by wading throughall the documentary exhibits presented to spot the oddity in the transactions.Simply, the irregularity could not have been masked by one person alone.AFP-RSBS officials, in the persons of accused Ramiscal and accused Pabalan,were sure to have trailed the development of these sale transactions and bytheir own assent, effected the declaration of a lower selling price to evade thepayment of a higher transfer tax. Verily, one had to account for theconsequential disparity resulting from the declaration of a lower selling priceand its corresponding low tax payment when the sale transaction actuallyyielded a higher selling price. The scheme was highly attainable as it was thesellers, purportedly represented by accused Flaviano, who were tasked toeffect the transfer of registration of subject lots.

Direct proof is not essential to show conspiracy. It need not be shownthat the parties actually came together and agreed in express terms to enterinto and pursue a common design. The existence of the assent of minds whichis involved in a conspiracy may be, and fi:om the secrecy of the crime, usuallymust be, inferred by the court firom proof of facts and circumstances which,taken together, apparently indicate that they are merely parts of somecomplete whole. If it is proved that two or more persons aimed by theiracts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doinga part so that their acts, though apparently independent, were in factconnected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal associationand a concurrence of sentiments, then a conspiracy may be inferredthough no actual meeting among them to concert means is proved. Thus,the proof of conspiracy, which is essentially hatched under cover and out ofview of others than those directly concerned, is perhaps most frequently madeby evidence of a chain of circumstances only.^^®

The conspiracy cannot be closely tiedto the vendors.

Having determined that accused Flaviano consorted together withpublic officers Ramiscal and Pabalan to such scheme, there is a noticeablevacuum to where the vendors are involved.

At this instance, the vendors who actively participated in the trial areonly Alex Guaybar, Oliver Guaybar, Jonathan Guaybar, Joel Teves, andJose Rommel Saludar. To reiterate, the criminal liability of accused JackGuiwan, Mad Guaybar, and Martin Saycon have long been extinguished byreason of their death. Accused Rico Altizo and Johnny Medillo remain atlarge while verifications on the reported death of accused Miguela Cabi-ao isstill pending. •

^ 1AMzo V. Sandiganbayabn, G.R. Nos. 98494-98692, July 17, 2003


DECISION

Before the reversion of Lot X was adjudged in Republic v. AFP-RSBS,et it may be said that the acquisition of subject lot, together with LotsY-1 and Y-2, has always been a legal battle for the Heirs of Cabalo Kusop,following a series of legislation which isolated said lots as municipalreservation for GenSan. Significantly, while no direct evidence was producedduring trial as to the relation of the vendors in these cases to the Heirs ofCabalo Kusop, they have been particularly identified as such in Republic v.AFP-RSBS, et al

Relegated as Heirs of Cabalo Kusop, therefore, accused Alex Guaybar,Oliver Guaybar, Jonathan Guaybar, Joel Teves, and Jose RommelSaludar managed, on the basis of their own sales patent application, toacquire subdivided portions of Lot X. By now, however. Lot X has beenordered reverted to the Republic, leaving fiiem with no more lot to contendwith.

For their defense, therefore, it seemed predictable that accused AlexGuaybar, Oliver Guaybar, Jonathan Guaybar, Joel Teves, and Jose RommelSaludar presented themselves as plain laborers or construction workers withnary a valuable education to wage for them a better understanding of theirsituation in life, save for their trust to a lawyer named Atty. Flaviano whoconstantly made them sign documents they never understood. They all deniedhaving owned land in their name. They denied having even heard of Lot X.^^^

Yet, despite the inherent struggle of the Heirs of Cabalo Kusop toacquire subject lot, why Lots X-1 to X-5 and Lots X-8 to X-14 eventuallyended up being acquired by AFP-RSBS in so short a time, however, caimotbe subjected to speculation. Rather, what then seemed inevitable was that thesale indeed transpired, with the sellers being represented by accused Flavianoas their attomey-in-fact. After all, this was the factual milieu from which thecase of Republic v. AFP-RSBS, et al was based. The denial interposed byaccused Alex Guaybar, Oliver Guaybar, Jonathan Guaybar, Joel Teves, and .Jose Rommel Saludar, therefore, is only gratuitous.

Since there were twelve sellers involved in all these cases, includingaccused Alex Guaybar, Oliver Guaybar, Jonathan Guaybar, Joel Teves, andJose Rommel Saludar, it would obviously take a greater leap to entangle theminto a conspiracy that would involve the declaration of a lower selling pricethan what was actually entered into for the sole purpose of paying a lowertransfer tax payment, as is the basis of the charges.

To spin an opportunity into one's own advantage, human nature dictatesthat the means to achieve it leans towards the furtive approach. The key tounlock this seems to initially lie in the Joint Special Power of Attorney^^^

G.R. No. 180463, January 16, 2013 / fy ̂tSN dated September 27, 2017, pp. 15-18, 23,30,37-38,43,47, 53, 66-67 / ̂Exhibit "MMMIVI" /

People V. Jose Ramiscal, Jr., et al. 49 | P a g eCriminal Case Nos. 25122 to 25145DECISION '

executed by accused Mad Guaybar, Oliver Guaybar, Jonathan Guaybar, AlexGuaybar, and Jack Guiwan, owners of Lots X-1 to X-5, respectively,appointing Atty. Nilo J. Flaviano as their true and lawful attomey-in-fact tosell subject lots. As what later transpired, two (2) sets of deeds of sale wereexecuted at this instance by accused Flaviano: one, that was bilateraP^ innature, reflecting the actual selling price; and the other, unilateraF^^ deedsexecuted at the instance of accused Flaviano for the same properties but at alower selling price.

If the circumstances of the sale, while lacking in detail, be ponderedfrom the vantage point of the sellers as reflected in the Joint Special Power ofAttorney, it would only appear that what they could know of the details of thesale transactions was the information fed to them by accused Flaviano, hebeing the lawyer proficient in the knowledge of the law. It has to beremembered that the vendors in these cases are plain simple folks, unschooledto a fault, who only wanted a piece of land in their names. It is certain that amonetary benefit, lucrative in proportion, would have been extended to them,should they have consented to the under-declaration of the selling price andits tax consequences. The evidence available, however, fails to point to eitherthe exertive participation or even the silent acquiescence of any of the vendorsto the under-declaration of the selling price. There is simply no logicalconnection in any of the events that could shackle the vendors to anyagreement that could likewise chain them to the under-declaration of theselling price and make them equally liable for the conspiracy.

To the mind of the Court, the Joint Special Power of Attorney executedby accused Mad Guaybar, Oliver Guaybar, Jonathan Guaybar, Alex Guaybar,and Jack Guiwan, if bared of its latent intentions, actually provided theirrefuge from the criminal responsibility forthcoming from the under-declaredsale transactions. It was now all up to accused Flaviano to do the rest. Sinceit was his signatures which all appeared in the bilateral and unilateral deeds ofsale, as far as Lots X-1 and X-5 are concerned, the responsibility began andended with him alone. Criminal liability did not extend to the vendors.

The same can be said for Lots X-8 to X-14, where the Agreements datedDecember 22, 1997^^^ and February 18, 1998,^^^ also bore the signature ofaccused Flaviano alone for the sellers, followed by the under-declaration ofthe selling price in the unilateral deeds of sale.^^®

Accused Flaviano, for all his intents and purposes, has been at the hubof the conspiracy after all.

fr.r264 Deed of Absolute Sale marked as Exhibits "F-14" to "F-17"

Exhibits "ILL" to "PPP" for Lots X-1 to X-5

2®® Exhibit "BB"

2®' Exhibit "HH"

2®® Exhibits "QQQ" to "WWW".


DECISION

Accused Ramiscal, Pabalan and Flavianoacted with evident bad faith in deliberatelyexecuting a Deed of Absolute Sale contraryto the terms of the purchase of Lots X-1 toX'5 and X-8 to X-ld for the purpose ofevading the full payment of taxes due thegovernment

As thus discussed, the agreement of the parties, both as to Lots X-1 toX-5 and Lots X-8 to X-14, was a sale for the consideration of F10,500.00 persquare meter.

Among the elements of Falsification of Public Documents under Art.171(4) of the Revised Penal Code is that the offender should have a legalobligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him. Although thebilateral agreements were meant primarily to govern the relationship betweenthe contracting parties, the end result of which was the transfer of titles fromthe sellers to AFP-RSBS, towards this end, the parties to the contract,especially one where public funds were utilized, were bound to disclose thetruth, instead of concealing it, and passing off another contract, now seen asfictitious, as the truth. In these cases, accused Ramiscal and Flaviano, assignatories to the contract, had the obligation to disclose the actual sellingprice to the BIR for the computation of the proper taxes necessary to effectthe transfer of titles. Accused Pabalan, while not a party to the contract, asProject Manager with the duty to oversee the implementation of the project,was not exempt from the duty to ensure that the contract stating the true sellingprice should be used in the transfef of titles of the properties to AFP-RSBS.

Evident bad faith connotes a manifest deliberate intent on the part ofthe accused to do wrong or cause damage.^^^ What smacks of evident badfaith in these cases is the accused's deliberate execution of a separate Deed ofAbsolute Sale despite the existence of one already stating the truth, knowing,if not intending, the detrimental consequences of under-declaring the sellingprice of the properties.

As held in National Power Corporation v. City of Cabanatuan'f^

Taxes are the lifeblood of the government, for without taxes, thegovernment can neither exist nor endure. A principal attribute ofsovereignty, the exercise of taxing power derives its source from the veryexistence of the state whose social contract with its citizens obliges it topromote public interest and common good. The theory behind the exerciseof the power to tax emanates from necessity; without taxes, governmentcannot fulfill its mandate of promoting the general welfare and well-beingof the people. (Emphasis supplied)

Costantino v. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. Nos. 140656 & 154482, September 13,2007"0 G.R. No. 149110, April 9, 2003

r

People V. Jose Ramlscal, Jr., et ai. 51 | P a g eCriminal Case Nos. 25122 to 25145DECISION

It is plain to see that the bilateral Deed of Absolute Sale/Agreementswere substituted in favor of the unilateral deeds of sale, to facilitate the lowerpayment of capital gains tax and documentary stamp taxes. With the pricedisparity, it can then be perceived that those who authored the falsificationpocketed the humongous difference.

The consequential under-declaration of the selling price has itsproportionate effect on the payment of capital gains tax and documentarystamp taxes. In the end, it is the government which stand prejudiced in termsof a shortfall in tax payments.

Such act reeks of evident bad faith.

As held in Marcelo v. Sandiganhayan^^ bad faith does not simplyconnote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose orsome moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of swornduty through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fi-aud.It contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design orsome motive of self-interest or ill will for ulterior purposes. Evident bad faithconnotes a manifest deliberate intent on the part of Ae accused to do wrongor cause damage.

This Court need not press further why the xmilateral deeds of salesuddenly surfaced. The objective, as with any spurious sale transaction, istargeted at the payment of lower capital gains and documentary stamp taxes.Since it is the government that is prejudiced in the end, it actually strikes thisCourt why neither accused Ramiscal nor accused Pabalan saw this coming.For that, they have to bear the consequences, together with the agent, accusedFlaviano.

Despite the timely intervention of theSIR to the payment of capital gains taxon the basis of zonal valuation^ undueinjury still exists as to the disparity inprice had the actual selling price beenproperly declared.

In jurisprudence, undue injury is consistently interpreted as actualdamage. Undue has been defined as more than necessary, not proper, [or]illegal; and injury as any wrong or damage done to another, either in hisperson, rights, reputation or property; that is, the invasion of any legallyprotected interest of another. Actual damage, in the context of thesedefinitions, is akin to that in civil law.^^^

/7

G.R. No. 69983, May 14,1990, cited cases were omitted

Llorente v. Sandiganbayan^ G.R. No. 122166, March 11,1998

?


DECISION

The Prosecution was able to prove that instead of paying capital gainsand documentary stamp tax amounting to P681,817.50 per lot, it paid onlyP389,610.00, thus, under-paying taxes amounting to P292,207.50 per lot. Butthe accused obviously attempted to cause more damage than this amount, butwere unsuccessful in obtaining a computation of capital gains anddocumentary stamp taxes based on the falsified Deeds of Absolute Sale.

What highlights the accused's evident bad faith and undue injury to thegovernment is the fact that public funds are involved in these cases. Theundue injury in the amount of the balance of P292,207.50 or P3,506,490.00for the 12 lots represented the portion of the funds released from the coffersof the government that should have found their way back in the form of taxesbut were instead left free to be used for whatever purpose the accused sointended.

Accused Flaviano 's Demurrer to Evidence

In his Demurrer to Evidence, accused Flaviano argued that theProsecution failed to prove that the selling price for the lots was PI0,500.00per square meter, as only P48,223,750.00 was shown to have been paidthereon at the time of the execution of the Deeds of Sale on September 24 and25, 1997. In so arguing, accused Flaviano unified all transactions, whenevidence would show that this amoimt was paid only for Lots X-1 to X-5. Assuch, it was wrong to compute the estimated value of all 12 lots based only onthe payment of P48,223,750.00 for Lots X-1 to X-5.

As exhaustively discussed above, this Court has found conspiracyamong accused Ramiscal, accused Pabalan and accused Flaviano in falsifyingthe unilateral Deeds of Absolute sale for the purpose of causing undue injuryto the government in the amount of unpaid taxes, and thus finds no basis inaccused Flaviano's assertion that such conspiracy has not been duly provenby the Prosecution.

The Demurrer easily fails, in which case accused Flaviano had to bearthe consequence of having waived the presentation of his evidence.

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered:

1) DENYING accused Nilo J. Flaviano's Demurrer to Evidence.Having filed the same without prior leave of Court, accused Flaviano isdeemed to have waived his right to present evidence and submitted the casefor judgment on the basis of the evidence for the Prosecution pursuant toSection 23 of Rule 119;

2) In CRIMINAL CASE NOS. 25122 to 25133, accused JoseRamiscal, Jr. and Nilo J. Flaviano are found GUILTY beyond reasonabledoubt of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019. They are herebysentenced to suffer in each of the cases an indeterminate penalty of

/


imprisonment of SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) MONTH as minimum toTEN (10) YEARS as maximum. Additionally, accused Jose Ramiscal, Jr. issentenced to suffer in each of the cases perpetual disqualification to holdpublic office;

3) In CRIMINAL CASE NOS. 25134 to 25145, accused JoseRamiscal, Jr. and Nilo J. Flaviano are found GUILTY beyond reasonabledoubt of the crime of Falsification of Public Documents defined and penalizedunder Article 171 paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code. There being noaggravating nor mitigating circumstances proven, they are hereby sentencedin each of the cases to suffer the indeterminate penalty of FOUR (4) YEARSand TWO MONTHS of prision correccional as minimum, to EIGHT (8)YEARS and ONE (1) DAY o^prision mayor as maximum, and to each paya FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS ̂5,000.00) in every case;

No judgment is pronounced against accused Wilfiredo Pabalan whosecases have already been dismissed by reason of his death.^^^

4) For failvire of the Prosecution to prove their guilt beyondreasonable doubt:

4.1) Accused Alex Guaybar is ACQUITTED of Violation of Section3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 in CRIMINAL CASE NO. 25122 andFalsification of Public Document under Article 171 paragraph 4 of theRevised Penal Code in CRIMINAL CASE NO. 25135;

4.2) Accused Oliver Guaybar is ACQUITTED of Violation ofSection 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 in CRIMINAL CASE NO.25125 and Falsification of Public Document under Article 171

paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code in CRIMINAL CASE NO.25137;

4.3) Accused Jonathan Guaybar is ACQUITTED of Violation ofSection 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 in CRIMINAL CASE NO.25126 and Falsification of Public Document under Article 171


4.4) Accused Joel Teves is ACQUITTED of Violation of Section3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 in CRIMINAL CASE NO. 25129 andFalsification of Public Document under Article 171 paragraph 4 of theRevised Penal Code in CRIMINAL CASE NO. 25142;

4.5) Accused Jose Rommel Saludar is ACQUITTED of Violation ofSection 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 in CRIMINAL CASE NO.25128 and Falsification of Public Document under Article 171


Resolution dated November 23,2016, Records, Vol. 6, p. 123 Y


DECISION

4.6) There being no proof to date of accused Miguela Cabi-ao'sreported death, she is ACQUITTED of Violation of Section 3(e) ofRepublic Act No. 3019 in CRIMINAL CASE NO. 25127 andFalsification of Public Document under Article 171 paragraph 4 of theRevised Penal Code in CRIMINAL CASE NO. 25139.

As regards these accused, People's General InsuranceCorporation (formerly People Trans-East Asia Insurance Company) isrelieved of its obligations under the surety bond upon finality of thisDecision.

5) Pending their apprehension in view of the standing warrants ofarrest issued, let the records of accused Rico Altizo and Johnny Medillo besent to the ARCHIVES.

SO ORDERED.

>1^MA. THERESA DOl^RES C. GOMEZ-ESTOESTAAssociate Justice, Chairperson

WE CONCUR:

BAYîp. JACINTOvAssocMte Justice Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in

consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of theCourt's Division.

DqôMA. THERESA D(j{ÔRES C. GOMEZ-ESTOESTAChairperson, Seventh Division


DECISION

55 I P a g e

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and theDivision Chairman's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions inthe above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assignedto the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

AMPARO M.

Presiding Justice