PABLITO MENESES AND SILVERIO BAUTISTA, APPELLANTS, VS. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, RESPONDENTS.

The appellants in G.R. No. 71651, Pablito
Meneses and Silverio
Bautista, and those in G.R. No. 71728, Pablo Silva, Virgilio
Cruz and Cesar Almendral, were charged before the Sandiganbayan
together with Lorenzo Meneses and Barulio
Darum, with a violation of Section 3, paragraphs (e)
and (j) of Republic Act No. 3019. as amended,
otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The (amended)
indictment against them reads as follows:

“That on or about March 1, 1977 or for sometime prior thereto,
in Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused Lorenzo Meneses,
then Mayor of Los Banos, Laguna; Braulio
Darum, then District Land Officer, District Land
Office IV-A-3; Cesar B. Almendral, Inspector,
District Land Office IV-A-3; Silverio Bautista,
Market Inspector of the Municipality of Los Banos,
Laguna, hence are public officers, conspiring and confederating with Pablo
Silva, Virgilio Cruz and Pablito
Meneses, all private individuals, and mutually
helping each other, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence, knowingly approve and grant to Pablito
Meneses Free Patent Nos. 12807 & 12808 over
portions of Lots 1 & 2 of PSU-208327, owned by the heirs of Dona Ciriaca Arguelles Vda. de Quisumbing and therefore not
subject to disposition, depriving said heirs of Dona Ciriaca
Arguelles Vda. de Quisumbing possession thereof thereby causing undue injury
to them while giving Pablito Meneses
unwarranted benefits, advantage and preference.”

After due proceedings and trial, the Second Division of the Sandiganbayan
promulgated judgment dated June 27, 1985, finding all the accused guilty of the
charges against them, except Mayor Lorenzo Meneses,
who was acquitted. The dispositive portion of the Sandiganbayan decision reads as
follows:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Braulio Darum y Cruz, Cesar Almendral y Basbas, Pablito Meneses y Cagongon, Silverio Bautista y
Santos, Pablo Silva y Salvador and Virgilio Cruz y Canare GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in the Violation of
Republic Act No. 3019, Section 3, paragraph (e) as amended, ** and hereby
sentences each of them to suffer the indeterminate penalty ranging from THREE
(3) YEARS as minimum, to SIX (6) YEARS as maximum; to further suffer perpetual
disqualification from public office, and to pay their proportionate costs of
this action.

Three (3) separate petitions for review on certiorari of
this judgment of conviction ware filed with this Court by the accused. As
already intimated, two of these, docketed as G.R. Nos. 71651 and 71728, were
filed respectively by Pablito Meneses
and Silverio Bautista, on the one hand, and Pablo
Silva, Virgilio Cruz and Cesar Almendral,
on the other. These are hereby jointly decided. The third appeal, docketed as
G.R. No. 72230, was perfected by Braulio Darum, but this was given short shrift; it was summarily
dismissed for lack of merit by Resolution dated October 10, 1985.

The antecedents are largely undisputed, most having in fact been
admitted by the defense in the proceedings in the Sandiganbayan
(Rollo, G.R. No. 71651, pp. 56 et seq.)

On September 19, 1919, a parcel of land in Los Banos, adjoining Laguna de Bay, with an area of 589 sq. m.,
was registered in the name of Ciriaca Arguelles Vda. de Quisumbing,
to whom was issued Original Certificate of Title No. 989. The land was later
inherited by her heirs, who obtained Transfer Certificate of Title No. 33393 in
their names.

In 1962 the Quisumbings instituted an accion publiciana in
the Court of First Instance of Laguna (docketed as Case B-350) to recover
possession of a portion of their property which had been intruded into by Dominga Villamor and Lorenzo Lanuzo: Judgment was rendered in the Quisumbings‘
favor on January 3, 1966. Villamor and Lanuzo appealed to the Court of Appeals but to no avail.
That Court affirmed in toto on February 7, 1974 the judgment of the Trial
Court.

In 1964, the Quisumbings caused the
survey of an additional area of 2,387 sq. m. which had accrued to their
property through the natural action of the waters of the Laguna de Bay. The
survey plan was duly drawn up, identified as PSU-20837. The plan divided the
additional area into two (2) lots and was in due course approved by the
Director of Lands on November 16, 1964.

The Quisumbings thereafter filed with
the Court of First Instance an application pursuant to the Torrens Act for the
registration in their names of said additional portion of land, and also prayed
that the land be subdivided into six (6) parcels in accordance with their
respective shares as co-owners. The case was docketed as LRC Case No. B-327. The proceedings were temporarily suspended in view of
the appeal in the accion publiciana
(Case B-350), supra. But after the dismissal of that appeal, the proceedings
were resumed and resulted in a decision dated September 28, 1978 confirming the
Quisumbings‘ title. The Court subsequently directed:
(1) on February 9, 1979 that the correspondingdecree
issue in the Quisumbings‘ favor; (2) on June 19, 1980
that the Quisumbings be placed in possession of the
lots registered in their names; and (3) on December 16, 1980, that the sheriff
demolish the houses and/or imrovements of the
occupants thereof. (Rollo, G.R. No. 71651, pp. 14-15:219-220.)

Months before the adjudication of the accion publiciana or sometime in May, 1978, the
Quisumbings discovered that someone had constructed a
swimming pool on a portion of their land. Investigation by their attorney soon
disclosed that in March, 1977, District Land Officer Braulio
Darum had issued to Pablito
Meneses, brother of Los Banos
Mayor Lorenzo Meneses, Free Patent No. 12807 with
Original Certificate of Title No. P-1268 (for 417 sq. m.) and
Free Patent No. 22808 with OCT No. P-1269 (for 515 sq.m.).

Said free patents and titles were issued by Darum
principally on the basis of (1) applications for free patents presented by Pablito Meneses; (2) the
certificates of inspection, prepared relative to said applications by Cesar Almendral, Land Inspector in the Bureau of Lands District
Land Office, in which it was stated that the property was originally owned by Gliceria Almeda who sold the land
to Silverio Bautista, a Los Banos
Market Collector; and that the latter in turn sold his rights to Pablito Meneses through a
“Deed of Waiver and Transfer of Rights,” notarized by Mayor Lorenzo Meneses; and (3) affidavits of Pablo Silva, Virgilio Cruz and Pablito Meneses claiming continuous occupation and cultivation of
the land by the latter. It was Cesar Almendral who
admittedly filled up the Free Patent forms and drew up the supporting
documents. The patents and titles were issued by Darum
to Pablito Meneses without
a survey plan of the land duly approved by the Director of Lands as required by
R.A. No. 6516 (eff., July 22, 1972). (Rollo, id., pp. 11-14;215-218.)

Darum manifested his opposition to the Quisumbings‘ application for title (LRC Case No. B-327) by writing to the Land Registration Commissioner on March 6, 1979 to request abatement of the issuance of the decree to the Quisumbings. He also filed, ostensibly in behalf of
the Director of Lands, a “Motion to Set Aside Order for Issuance of a Decree”,
but this was denied due course on account of his failure to show his authority
as well as his voluntary withdrawal of his appearance in the proceedings. (Rollo,
id., pp. 59-60.)

The Quisumbings filed a motion before
the CFI accusing Darum, Almendral,
the Meneses brothers, and several John Does of
contempt of court, for having issued or caused the issuance of free patents and
titles over the land while registration proceedings involving it, as part of a larger
parcel, were pending. On July 17, 1981,
the Court issued an order finding the accused guilty of contempt of court.

It was in the light of these antecedents and the other evidence
on that, as aforestated, the Sandiganbayan convicted all the
accused except Mayor Meneses. In the Court’s view —

“When accused Darum and Almendral processed and caused the approval and issuance of
the free Patents in question, based on the technical descriptions of the lots
covered thereby but which survey plan was not approved yet by the Director of
Lands as required by Republic Act No 6516, or without exerting due or even
ordinary diligence in ascertaining the actual owner or occupants of said land
from their own office records or from the Bureau of Lands, they thus acted with
gross inexcusable negligence. And when they awarded the patents to accused Pablito Meneses, under such
circumstances, they also acted with evident bad faith and manifest partiality
in granting undue or unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to said
patentee and to the prejudice or injury of the Quisumbings.
Accused Pablito Meneses,
Bautista, Cruz and Silva, on their part, are likewise liable as co-principals
in this fraudulent scheme as they fully well knew that they had no real or
positive basis, factual or legal, for their preparation of supporting documents
of the application for free Patents and which documents are clearly suspicious
or fraudulent. Under Section 3, paragraph (e), their collective liabilities
have been clearly established by the evidence to sustain conviction thereunder. Hence, We find no more
necessity to discuss their liabilities under Section 3, paragraph (j), which is
just another mode of commission of the offense.

The Sandiganbayan
ruled that contrary to the contentions of the accused —

1) the evidence, inclusive of the admitted facts, more than
adequately established the Quisumbings‘ title to the
property in question, alluding to specific facts and circumstances
demonstrating their and their predecessor’s possession and exercise of dominion
dating from 1919;

2) the exhibits submitted by the defense
were “not true and actual documents in existence in 1975 and were probably
manufactured and/or ante-dated to support the defense theory of good
faith,” it appearing —

a) “very suspicious that Almeda’s
application does not bear the marital consent ** of her husband and does not
include the details of her 1959 residence certificate (Exh
15-Meneses);

b) that “from June 29, 1959 to October 29, 1959. while certain proceedings allegedly
took place in connection with Almeda’s application,
there was a hiatus from October 29, 1959 up to August 12, 1963, on which latter
date Almeda was supposed to have paid P21.48 as fees
for her use and occupation of the land (Exh.
11-Meneses); **(and) there is another gap of time up to January 21, 1966 when Almeda’s affidavit of waiver in favor of Silverio Bautista was allegedly submitted to the Land
Management Division (Exhs 14 and 33-Meneses);

c) that “Exhibits 8-to-12-Meneses, inclusive were all secured
by counsel for Meneses only on September 13,1983
allegedly from the Natural Resources District No IV-2 Bureau of Lands, Los Banos, Laguna, and not from the Records Division of the
Central Office, Bureau of Lands or of District Land Office No. 7, which are the
proper official custodian of such records”;

d) that “the supposed affidavit of
waiver by Almeda in favor of Silverio
Bautista was allegedly executed on July
26, 1965 (Exh. 14-Meneses) and, although
it was mentioned in the said exhibit, there is no evidence presented as to its
actual existence”;

e) that “as of 1962, the same area applied for by Almeda, allegedly consisting of 300 sq. m. then, was
already the subject of litigation between the Quisumbings,
on one hand, and Domingo Villamor and Lonrenzo Lanuzo, on the other
hand” (Civil Case No. B-350, accion publiciana although the area involved had increased by
accretion to 859 sq. m. by that time [Exhibits E to E-2]):

f) that “the same land applied for by Almeda
was within ** the private land survey conducted in 1964 ** for the Quisumbings, denominated as PSU-208327 (EXHIBIT D), thus,
it would appear that Almeda had no legal or factual
basis in waiving her rights and interests in favor of Bautista on July 26.1965
(Exhibit 14-Meneses)”;

g) that “neither could Darum, Almendral and the Meneses brothers
ignore the existence of PSU-208327 as the said survey clearly appears on the
cadastral survey plan of Engr. Clemeno,
plus the fact that the land was the subject of land registration
proceedings;”

h) that “in his Deed of Waiver and Transfer of Right’, Bautista
declared that he had occupied the land in question since 1956 (Exhibit FF)
contrary to Exhibit 14-Meneses, which states that Almeda’s
waiver to him was in 1965″;

i) that “when Atty
Brion (the Quisumbings‘
attorney) went to ** Darum and also to the Meneses brothers, these persons could not show or present
the requisite documents to support the issuance of Free Patents to Pablito Meneses; ** (indeed) Darum and Almendral allegedly ‘reconstituted’
certain documents and it was only after the Quisumbings
had filed their complaint with the Tanodbayan and a prima facie case was found that the accused
came up with said reconstituted’ documents to support their motion for
reconsideration in 1981 (Exhibit TT).”

The Sandiganbayan
decision also pointed out “numerous inconsistencies and contradictions ** in
the defense evidence,” to wit:

“(1) While Bautista declared in his waiver (Exhibit FF)that
the consideration for the transfer of his rights to Pablito
Meneses was love and affection and some monetary
obligation,” however during his testimony in the contempt case, he declared
that Pablito owed him P12,000.00 (Exhibits 00-1 to
00-7), which Pablito himself admitted by declaring
during the same proceedings that he had agreed to pay P12,000.00 to Bautista on
installments (Exhibits NN-1 to NN-3).

(2) Bautista declared in his Deed of Waiver, dated May 5, 1985
(Exhibit FF) that the area of the land transferred by him to Pablito was 900 sq. m. while Almeda
claimed in her application that the area was 300 sq. m., and that she had
occupied said land since 1958 (Exhibit 12-Meneses). In Bautista’s Application
for Permit dated Feburary 14, 1973 (Exhibit
27-Meneses), he stated that the area was still 300 sq. m., while in his
Affidavit dated May 12,1980, he stated that area is 318 sq. m.

(3) In the documents submitted by the defense and which were
notarized by accused Lorenzo Meneses, some documents
were notarized by the latter as municipal mayor of Los Banos,
while others were notarized as a notary public, a circumstance which casts doubt
as to the genuineness of the allegedly ‘reconstituted’ supporting documents to
his brother Pablito’s application.

(4) If it were true, as Pablito Meneses and Silverio Bautista
contended, that the land subject of the free patent application had an arm of
900 sq. m. as of 1975 (Exhibit FF), ** no justification therefor
(exists) since the private survey (PSU-208327) conducted at the behest of the Quisumbings on May 16, 1984 showed that the total land area
which was added to the original Quisumbing property
by accretion was already 2,387 sq. m. (Exhibits D to D-3) In fact, in Pablito Meneses‘ two applications
(Exhibits M and M-1), no area was mentioned of the two lots applied for.

(5) While the defense vigorously insisted on their theory that the
land in question was held in occupancy by Gliceria Almeda from the Japanese Occupation up to 1965 when she
transferred her rights to Silverio Bautista, however,
there was no solid or substantial refutation of the prosecution’s evidence that
Private Land Surveyor Benigno E. Aquino’s
findings, as set forth in the technical descriptions of Lots 1 and 2 of
PSU-208327, together with his Surveyor’s Certificate, showed that as of 1964,
the adjoining owners of said land were the Quisumbings,
Santiago de los Santos and the Heirs of E. Capinpin (Exhibits D-1 to D-3).”

In their appeal (G.R. No. 71651) Pablito
Meneses and Silverio
Bautista raise the following issues:

1. Whether or not private individuals like them “may be held
criminally liable for alleged violation of Section 3 (e) of R. A. 3019 under
which they are convicted anent the issuance of and granting of free patents
titles;”

2. Whether or not they were convicted “on the basis of alleged
weakness of their evidence and not on the strength of the evidence of the
prosecution;”

3. Whether or not their conviction was founded on “mere
suspicions and conjectures unsupported by positive proof;”

4. Whether or not they “may be convicted of conspiracy, when
same appeared not punishable under the under the law allegedly ^

violated, and whether the existence of
conspiracy may be inferred in the absence of positive and convincing
evidence;”

5. Whether or not the Sandiganbayan was “justified in disregarding and
ignoring public documents that favor ** (their) innocence after all of said
documents have been admitted in evidence;” and

6. Whether or not “the conclusion drawn from the record by the
Sandiganbayan
in arriving at a verdict of conviction is legally justified, a question of law
which ** (the) Supreme Court is authorized to pass upon to avoid miscarriage of
justice.”

On the other hand, the appellants in G.R. No. 71728, Pablo Silva,
Silverio Cruz and Cesar Almendral,
ascribe to the Sandiganbayan
the following errors, viz:

1) “in declaring “the existence of
conspiracy despite the fact that no evidence of its existence could be obtained
from the evidence of the prosecution **”;

2) “in not considering the acts of Silva and Cruz as truthful,
legal and done in utmost good faith and therefore cannot be taken to form part
of a supposed conspiracy to commit a crime”;

3) “in not relying on the strength of
the prosecution evidence but on the weakness of the defense”;

4) “in allowing itself to be unduly
influenced by the findings of the Civil Service Commission of grave misconduct
and neglect of duties of accused Darum“; and

5) “in not holding the evidence of
the prosecution insufficient to establish a moral certainty of guilt and in not
giving due weight and consideration to the evidence for the defense.”

It would seem quite obvious that such issues raised by Meneses and Bautista in G.R. No. 71651 as whether or not
conviction was on the basis of alleged weakness of the defense evidence rather
than on the strength of the prosecution’s proofs or was founded on mere
suspicions and conjectures; or the existence of conspiracy was inferred in the
absence of positive and convincing evidence; or the evidence on record does not
justify arrival at a verdict of guilt, are issues of fact, and not of law So,
too, such issues as are set up by Silva, Cruz and Almendral
in G.R. No. 71728, to wit: whether or not there is sufficient evidence of
conspiracy among the accused; or Silva and Cruz acted truthfully and in utmost
good faith; or the Sandiganbayan
relied on the weakness of the defense rather than on the strength of the
evidence of the State; or the judgment of the Sandiganbayan was unduly
influenced by the findings of the Civil Service Commission of grave misconduct
and neglect of duties as regards accused Darum; or
the evidence of the prosecution is insufficient to establish moral certainty of
guilt, are factual, not legal, issues. But it is axiomatic that in appeals to
this Court from the Sandiganbayan
only questions of law may be raised, not issues of fact (Sec. 7, PD 1606; Nunez
v. Sandiganbayan
111 SCRA 433). Absent any grave abuse of discretion tainting the factual
findings of the Sandiganbayan,
and the record discloses no such grave abuse of discretion in the case at bar,
this Court is bound by those findings (Calubaquib v.
People, 117 SCRA 493).

In any event, a review of the record (Cesar vs. Sandiganbayan,
134 SCRA 105, 121) satisfies this Court of the absence of error in the Sandiganbayan‘s
factual findings. The appellants’ claim of good faith and lack of awareness of
the registration proceedings initiated by the Quisumbings
and the accion publiciana
filed against Dominga Villamor
and Lorenzo Lanuso cannot be given credence. These
proceedings, apart from being widely known, could not possibly have eluded the
attention of the accused officers of the Bureau of Lands. By reason of their
positions which gave them easy access to all land surveys and records of
registration proceedings within their district, and the fact, particularly,
that they had to inquire into the history of the lands involved in the
applications of Pablito Meneses,
and hence had to precisely examine those surveys and records, they could not
but learn, if they did not already know, the recorded and observable facts. The
appellants could not produce or exhibit to the Quisumbings‘
counsel, Atty. Brion, the papers relevant to Pablito Meneses applications for
free patent. It was only after the Quisumbings had
filed a complaint with the Tanodbayan that the accused public officers presented any of
the relevant documents; but even at this time, what was produced was not the
originals of Pablito Meneses‘
free patent applications but only “reconstituted” copies thereof,
furthermore, the copies bore only the signature of the Land District Officer, Almendral, but not of the applicants, and equally as
significant, showed that no notice of the applications had been given to
adjoining land-owners. And, as earlier already stressed, the cadastral survey
made the basis for the issuance of free patents and titles to Pablito Meneses had never been
approved by the Director of Lands as explicitly required by law. These
circumstances, considered conjointly with the other evidence of the
prosecution, and the infirmities in the documentary proofs of the appellants
and the serious inconsistencies and contradictions in their testimonial
declarations — set forth by the Sandiganbayan in its decision in no little detail, and of
the existence of which this Court is also satisfied – confirm the validity of
the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan, inclusive of its adjudgment
that a conspiracy existed among the appellants as demonstrated by their
individual acts which though separately performed, all obviously conduced
towards the attainment of a common objective. Those findings will not therefore
be disturbed.

The point sought to be made by appellants that private persons,
such as Pablito Meneses and
Silverio Bautista, can not be convicted of a
violation of Section 3[3] of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law, its
application being limited only to public officers, cannot be conceded. Section
1 of the law makes clear the legislative intention to make application of the
statute extend both to public officers and private persons.

“The policy of the Philippine government, in line with the
principle that a public office is a public trust is to repress certain acts of
public officers and private persons alike which constitute graft or corrupt
practices or which may lead thereto.” (SEE also, Sec 4 [3rd
par.], PD 1606, as amended by PD 1861.)

Moreover, as the Solicitor General stresses, quite correctly —

” ** Section 4 [b] of R.A. 3019
punishes any private individual who knowingly induces a public Officer to
commit any offense defined in Section 3 of the said statute. Appellant Meneses desperately attempts to exctricate
himself by insisting that he cannot be punished for merely applying for a free
patent from the accused Darum and Almendral.
This would be true, were this the full extent of his participation, but as
circumstances show, he voluntarily participated in the fraud committed against
the Quisumbings. Indeed, it would be unlikely that
the public officers concerned would go to such lengths to grant such titles
were they not persuaded to do so by the appellants.”

Having conspired and confederated with the accused public
officers, in the perpetration of acts designed towards the obtention
of pecuniary benefits or advantage, in violation of law, they must be deemed to
have consented to and adopted as their own, the offense of said public
officers; in a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all (People v. Damaso, 86 SCRA 370; see also U.S. v. Ponte, 20 Phil. 379;
U.S. v. Dato and Lustre, 37
Phil. 359; People v. Caluag, et al., 94 Phil. 457; Halili v. CIR, 136
SCRA 112).

WHEREFORE, the
petitions in G.R. Nos. 71651 and 71728 are DISMISSED and the judgment of the Sandiganbayan
affirmed, with costs against the appellants.

Teehankee, C.J., Yap, Fernan, Melencio-Herrera,
Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento and Cortes, JJ., concur.