PEDRO CASTANEDA, PETITIONER, VS. THE SANDIGANDAYAN, SECOND DIVISION, RESPONDENT.

This is a petition to review on certiorari the decision of
the Sandiganbayan finding petitioner Pedro Castañeda and accused Sancho Gapasin guilty beyond reasonable doubt am co-principals of
violating section 3, paragraph (e) of Republic Act No. 3019 as amended
(Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and sentencing each of them to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from four years as minimum to six
years as maximum, to suffer from perpetual special disqualification from public
office, to indemnify, jointly and severally, Alfredo Cales
and Rivera Camacho the amounts of P6,000.00 and P5,500.00 respectively,
representing the value of the carbaos of which they
were illegally deprived, and P1,946,60 as actual expenses which were incurred
by the latter in prosecuting their complaint and to pay their proportionate
share of the costs.

The information filed against the accused alleged:

“That on or about the 14th day of December, 1979, at Barrio Bulala, Municipality of Sablan,
Province of Benguet, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused SANCHO G. GAPASIN, a Deputy
Sheriff of the Province of La Union, taking advantage of his public and
official position and through manifest partiality, evident bad faith and/or
gross inexcusable negligence in the discharge of his official and
administrative functions in the execution of the Writ of Execution in Civil Case No. 300 of the Municipal Court of Naguilian,
La Union, conspiring, cooperating and confederating, as well as
colluding and conniving, with the accused ALEJANDRO CASILLA and with the
accused PEDRO CASTANEDA, who are private individuals, levied, took and placed under
his control and custody two (2) pregnant female carabaos,
one of them belonging to RIVERA CAMACHO with value of Five Thousand Five
Hundred (P5,500.00) PESOS and the other to ALFREDO CALES with value of Six
Thousand (P6,000.00) PESOS, which were directly brought to the residence of
accused Pedro Castaneda at Romas, Paringa,
Bauang, La
Union and, with undue haste, abuse or excess of authority, serious misconduct
and irregularity and flagrant disregard of the elementary requirements of
justice and fairness by having openly and wantonly neglected to give a Notice
of Sale and conduct a public auction, directly sold and transferred to accused
Pedro Castaneda these said carabaos for Three
Thousand Three Hundred (P3,300.00) Pesos, thereby wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously causing undue injury, damage and prejudice to RIVERA
CAMACHO and ALFREDO CALES, as owners thereof, all to the total sum of
ELEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED (P11,500.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”

(Rollo,
pp. 32-33).

The prosecution evidence upon which the Sandiganbayan
based its finding of guilt is summarized by it as follows:

On December 14, 1979, accused Sancho Gapasin, was the Deputy Sheriff of the Court of First
Instance, Branch IV, La Union.  Civil
Case No. 300 was filed in the Municipal Court of Naguilian, La Union, presided over by
Judge Jose Quesada, wherein the plaintiff was Alejandro Casilla
and the defendant therein was Tranquilino Soriano, for a sum of money.  On September 14, 1979, Judge Quesada rendered
a decision in said case and ordered the defendant to pay the sum of
P300.00 as surveyor’s fee, to respect the boundaries of their respective lands
as relocated by the surveyor and to pay
P3,000.00 for actual expenses and moral as well as
exemplary damages (Exhibit A).  By
virtue of said decision, Judge Quesada issued a writ of execution and ordered
one policeman from the Naguilian INP Station to
escort Deputy Sheriff Gapasin to enforce said writ of execution and to seize the goods and
properties of defendant Tranquilino Soriano (Exhibits B and C).  After accused Gapasin
had effected said writ of execution, he executed an
affidavit stating among others that the writ of execution was properly served (Exhibit D).  Among the properties levied upon were two (2)
carabaos ages 5 and 8, which were later sold to accused Pedro Castañeda, being the
highest bidder.  Considering that said carabaos had no papers of ownership, accused Gapasin executed an Affidavit of Sale on December 17, 1979
which was used as a basis for the transfer of said carabaos
to Castañeda who, in turn, paid the amount of
P3,300.00 to Gapasin and which the latter duly
receipted (Exhibits E and F).  On 18,
1979, accused Gapasin wrote a letter to Atty. Cirilo Cawed, counsel for plaintiff Casilla, of the Citizens Legal Assistance Office of San
Fernando, La Union, informing him that the writ of execution was already
accomplished (Exhibit G).  Accused Gapasin had also hired a jeep in loading said carabaos for which he paid the amount of P300.00 duly
acknowledged by its driver Loreto Gundran and which
amount was also used in paying persons
who helped in the transportation and delivery of said carabaos (Exhibit H).

Alfredo Cales,
a resident of Bayabas, Sablan, Benguet, was the owner of a carabao with its corresponding brand, as evidenced by a
Certificate of Ownership of Large Cattle (Exhibits I, I-1 to I-1-a).  On December 14, 1979, a messenger of his uncle, Batanes Otong, the latter
being the caretaker of his carabao, came to his house to inform him that
said carabao was taken by accused Gapasin while it was being pastured in his land at Bayabas, Sablan.  He and his wife proceeded to the house
of Tranquilino
Soriano at Naguilian,
La Union, and later went to see Pat. Lito Picazo because they learned that the latter was one of
those who transported said carabao.  Picazo, however, told
them that he had nothing to do with said carabao.  The following morning, Cales, Camacho, Otong and Soriano went to
the police station of Sablan and reported the matter,
resulting in the filing of a
complaint against accused Gapasin and Picazo,
wherein Cales‘ statement was taken (Exhibit J). 
Accompanied by three (3) policemen,
two (2) barangay captains and several persons, the group went to Bauang, La
Union, to look for the carabaos.  In Bauang, they met accused Gapasin and
they pleaded with him to return
their carabaos but Gapasin told them that even if they will sue him he cannot do anything
anymore as he had already sold the carabaos.  It was only during the trial of this case when Cales came to
know that Gapasin had sold the carabaos
to accused Pedro Castañeda.

Rivera Camacho, likewise,
took the witness stand and declared
that he was the owner of a female carabao about 7
months pregnant with its corresponding brand as evidenced by certificate of
Ownership of Large Cattle (Exhibits
K and K-1).  On December 14, 1979, Tranquilino Soriano, the
caretaker of his carabao, informed him that accused Gapasin had taken said carabao
while being pastured near the land of Cales.  They went to Naguilian
to look for said carabao and when they met Gapasin thereat, the latter told him that he has nothing to do with said carabao as
he had already sold the same.  Camacho
reported the matter to the police station of Sablan
where his statement was taken (Exhibit L).

Cales and Camacho were later recalled to
the witness stand and both declared that in the course of their several attempts to recover their carabaos from accused Gapasin,
they had incurred expenses, and when this case was tried in Manila, they had to shoulder their expenses equally such as hotel accommodations, meals, bus fares
and other miscellaneous expenses in going back and forth to Manila (Exhibits M,
M-1 to M-20, N, N-1 to N-10 and O, O-1 to O-5). 
All in all, their expenses amounted to P1,946.60.

Batanes Otong, 71 years old, farmer and resident of Bulala, Sablan, Benguet, was called to
the witness stand and testified that on December 14, 1979, while pasturing a carabao belonging to Alfredo Cales
which was then under his care and custody, he met Tranquilino
Soriano and the latter informed him that he had seen
several persons take both of their carabaos while
being pastured.  They followed the
persons who took their carabaos and when they reached
Angcaway, they saw accused Gapasin
and two (2) companions resting in a store with the carabaos.  They approached Gapasin
and told him not to take away said carabaos, but Gapasin told them that it is none of their business.  They went home and informed the owners of
said carabaos as to what had happened and later
reported the matter to the police station of Sablan
where Otong’s statement was taken (Exhibits P and P­1).
(Rollo, pp. 35 – 39).

The charge against Alejandro Casilla,
the judgment creditor in Civil Case No. 300 and one of the accused, was
dismissed by the Sandiganbayan on a demurrer to
evidence.  Gapasin
did not raise the judgment against him to this Court.

Pedro Castañeda filed this petition
questioning his conviction.  He raises
the following assignment of errors:

I

THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN FINDING PEDRO CASTAÑEDA A
CO-CONSPIRATOR OF ACCUSED SANCHO GAPASIN.

II

THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN FINDING PEDRO CASTAÑEDA GUILTY
AS CO-PRINCIPAL OF ACCUSED SANCHO GAPASIN.

III

THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN RULING THAT THE PROSECUTION
WAS ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE GUILT OF PEDRO CASTAÑEDA BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

IV

THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING PEDRO
CASTAÑEDA.

V

THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN NOT ORDERING ACCUSED ALEJANDRO
CASILLA TO RETURN TO THE COURT FOR PROPER DISPOSITION THE AMOUNT OF P3,000.00
HE RECEIVED FOR THE SALE OF THE TWO CARABAOS. (Rollo,
pp. 8 – 9)

The only issue to be resolved is whether or not a conspiracy
existed between the appellant Castañeda and his
co-accused Gapasin in the irregular sale of the carabaos.

The finding of conspiracy by the respondent court is based on the
following:

“1) Castañeda is an experienced buyer of carabaos.  He should have been aware of the requirement
that large cattle are covered by Certificates of Ownership of Large Cattle.  He did not check the certificates.

2)      
Castañeda
became aware that the carabaos did not belong to Soriano when the latter objected to the irregular
levy.  Yet, he held on to the possession
of the carabaos.

3)      
Castañeda
advanced the P300.00 to pay the jeepney hired by Gapasin to transport the carabaos
from the place where they were seized.

4)      
Castañeda
never bothered to check and verify the real ownership of the carabaos.

5)      
The price paid for the
carabaos sold through the Sheriff’s affidavit
of sale was clearly inadequate. (See Rollo, pp.
54-55)

There are exceptions to the rule that findings of a trial court are generally accorded great respect and, therefore, should
be followed.  When the court ignored,
overlooked or failed to properly appreciate matters of substance or importance
likely to affect the results of the case [Centino v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 77298, January 13, 1989; People v. Ale, 145 SCRA 50
(1986)], this Court carefully weighs the evidence found in the records.

A careful review of the records indicates some misapprehensions
of facts which constrain us to grant this petition and to acquit the
accused-appellant.

As held in the case of People v. Elizaga,
(G.R. No. 78794, November 21, 1988):

Time and again, We have held that
conspiracy, like any other ingredient of the offense, must be established by
clear and convincing evidence, not by mere conjectures.  It is also a well-entrenched rule that proof beyond reasonable doubt is required to
establish a finding of criminal conspiracy.

This rule is similarly expressed in the cases of People v. Pugay, (G.R. No.
74324, November 17, 1988) and People v. Pardilla, (G.R. No. 45266, November 24, 1988).

There is nothing in the records to show that Castañeda
and Gapasin had come to an agreement concerning the
commission of the offense and thereafter decided to commit it.

The fact that Castañeda was a buyer of carabaos and, therefore, should know that they are covered
by Certificates of Ownership registered in the Local Civil Registry does not
indicate conspiracy in a crime.  The carabaos were sold to him by the Sheriff.

The court said that he did not even bother to verify the real
owners of the carabaos.  This is inaccurate as Castañeda
demanded from Gapasin the said certificates.  Gapasin, however,
informed him that he could not show the papers as he (Gapasin)
could not locate them among the voluminous records kept in the Local Civil
Register of Naguilian, La Union. (tsn, May 27, 1982, p. 15).

Instead, Gapasin issued him an
Affidavit of Sale duly signed by the former with Judge Josue
M. Quezada as the subscribing officer.  (Exhibits 2, 2-A, 2-B).

There is no evidence
to show that the appellant did not act on the reasonable belief that Gapasin was engaged in the regular performance of his duty
as Deputy Sheriff, (See Rule 131, sec. 5(m) of the Rules of Court) or that the
Judge would not administer the oath to something irregular or illegal.

The second fact relied upon by the lower court was that Castañeda was present at the time Soriano
was objecting to the levy being made by Gapasin and
therefore he knew that the carabaos were not owned by
Soriano.

Although Castañeda was present at that
time, he only witnessed Soriano telling Gapasin not to take the two carabaos
or else something will happen to him.  Soriano did not reveal at that time that he was not the real owner of the carabaos.  Gapasin informed Soriano then
that if he wanted the carabaos back, he had only to pay back
his obligation. (tsn, March 4, 1982, pp. 37-38). It is not unusual for owners of property being levied upon or seized to tell the sheriff
that the property does not belong to them. 
For a buyer of property being sold by the sheriff not to pay
much attention to said
protestations cannot prove conspiracy in the scheme to commit a crime.

Rivera Camacho and Alfredo Cales
presented themselves to Gapasin as the real owners of
the carabaos only after Gapasin
was already alone and the carabaos had already been
sold to Castaneda.

If Castaneda advanced or loaned money to the sheriff for the hire
of a jeepney to
transport seized goods or items, this is not necessarily an indication
of awareness that the sheriff was up to no
good, much less positive conspiracy in the act.  Regarding the alleged inadequacy in price, we
have to bear in mind that the appellant was not buying property from the owners
but from the sheriff.  The judgment debt
was only P3,300.00 and that was all about which
Sheriff Gapasin appeared to be concerned.

WHEREFORE, the
petition is hereby GRANTED.  Appellant
Castaneda is ACQUITTED on grounds of reasonable doubt.  The judgment of the respondent court
is accordingly modified to the extent of the appellant’s acquittal.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa,
Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Paras,
Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin,
Sarmiento, Cortes, Griño-Aquino,
Medialdea, and
Regalado, JJ., concur.