12/13/2017 G.R. Nos. 192698-99, April 22, 2015 - RAYMUNDO E. ZAPANTA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

dent. : APRIL 2015 - …

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Like 1 Tweet Share

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2015 > April 2015 Decisions > G.R. Nos. 192698-99, April 22,
2015 - RAYMUNDO E. ZAPANTA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.:

Custom Search
Search G.R. Nos. 192698-99, April 22, 2015 - RAYMUNDO E. ZAPANTA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. Nos. 192698-99, April 22, 2015

RAYMUNDO E. ZAPANTA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

DECISION

MENDOZA, J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the October 29,
2009 Decision1 and the June 10, 2010 Resolution2 of the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division (Sandiganbayan),
in Criminal Case Nos. 27502 and 27503, which found accused-petitioner Raymundo E. Zapanta (Zapanta)
and his co-accused, Atty. Aludia P. Gadia (Atty. Gadia), guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of
Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act; and Infidelity in the Custody of Documents, defined and penalized under Article 226 of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC).

The Antecedents

Zapanta, together with Atty. Gadia, was indicted for the crime of Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No.
3019 in the Information, docketed as Criminal Case No. 27502, the accusatory portion of which reads: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

That [on] or about August 2000, in Davao City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above named accused ALUDIA P. GADIA, a high ranking public
officer, being then the Registrar of Deeds, and RAYMUNDO E. ZAPANTA, vault/records
DebtKollect Company, Inc. keeper, both of the Registry of Deeds, Davao City, conspiring and confederating with one
another, with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence, did
then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously cause the issuance of TCT NO. T-
285369, deleting the encumbrance annotated in TCT No. T-256662, from where the
former title was derived, thereby affording unwarranted benefits to First Oriental Ventures,
Inc., the owner of TCT No. T-285369, to the damage and prejudice of Manuel Ang, Sr., the
mortgagee in TCT No. 256662 in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
(P500,000.00).

CONTRARY TO LAW.3

[Emphasis Supplied]

In Criminal Case No. 27503, Zapanta and Atty. Gadia were charged with the crime of Infidelity in the
Custody of Documents under Article 226 of the RPC. The accusatory portion of the Information states: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

That [on] or about August 2000, in Davao City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above named accused ALUDIA P. GADIA, a high ranking public
officer, being then the Registrar of Deeds and RAYMUNDO E. ZAPANTA, Vault/Records
Keeper, both of the Registry of Deeds, Davao City, conspiring and confederating with one
another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously cause the removal and
ChanRobles Intellectual Property disappearance of TCT No. 256662, which public document is under their custody and
Division officially entrusted to them, thereby causing damage to the mortgagee of TCT No. 256662,

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015aprildecisions.php?id=350 1/8
12/13/2017 G.R. Nos. 192698-99, April 22, 2015 - RAYMUNDO E. ZAPANTA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. : APRIL 2015 - …
April-2015 Jurisprudence
G.R.No. 212092, April 08, 2015 - PEOPLES
GENERAL INSURANCE CORP. (FORMERLY: PEOPLE'S
TRANS-EAST ASIA INSURANCE CORP.), Petitioner, v.
COL. FELIX MATEO A. RUNES, Respondent.
A.C. No. 5116, April 13, 2015 - DAVAO IMPORT
DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Complainant, v. ATTY. JOHNNY
LANDERO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 176114, April 08, 2015 - GRACE SAN
DIEGO Y TRINIDAD, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent.
G.R.No. 212092, April 08, 2015 - PEOPLES
GENERAL INSURANCE CORP. (FORMERLY: PEOPLE'S
TRANS-EAST ASIA INSURANCE CORP.), Petitioner, v.
COL. FELIX MATEO A. RUNES, Respondent.
A.C. No. 5116, April 13, 2015 - DAVAO IMPORT
DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Complainant, v. ATTY. JOHNNY
LANDERO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 193169, April 06, 2015 - ROGELIO ROQUE,
Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 176114, April 08, 2015 - GRACE SAN
DIEGO Y TRINIDAD, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent.
G.R. No. 209741, April 15, 2015 - SOCIAL
SECURITY COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. EDNA A.
AZOTE, Respondent.
G.R. No. 185664, April 08, 2015 - ANGELES P.
BALINGHASAY, RENATO M. BERNABE, ALODIA L. DEL
ROSARIO, CATALINA T. FUNTILA, TERESITA L.
GAYANILO, RUSTICO A. JIMENEZ, ARCELI P. JO,
ESMERALDA D. MEDINA, CECILIA S. MONTALBAN,
VIRGILIO R. OBLEPIAS, CARMENCITA R. PARREÑO,
EMMA L. REYES, REYNALDO L. SAVET, SERAPIO P.
TACCAD, VICENTE I. VALDEZ, SALVACION F.
VILLAMORA, AND DIONISIA M. VILLAREAL,
Petitioners, v. CECILIA CASTILLO, OSCAR DEL
ROSARIO, ARTURO S. FLORES, XERXES NAVARRO,
MARIA ANTONIA A. TEMPLO AND MEDICAL CENTER
PARAÑAQUE, INC., Respondent.
G.R. No. 203804, April 15, 2015 - DARIO A.
CARCEDO (SUBSTITUTED BY HIS WIFE PRISCILLA
DELA CRUZ-CARCEDO), Petitioner, v. MAINE MARINE
PHILIPPINES, INC. AND/OR MISUGA KAJUN CO.,
LTD., AND/OR MA. CORAZON GEUSE-SONGCUYA,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 198543, April 15, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CESAR C. PASICOLAN
AND GREGORIO C. PASICOLAN, Respondent.
G.R. No. 204646, April 15, 2015 - SMART
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., NAPOLEON L. NAZARENO,
AND RICARDO P. ISLA,* Petitioners, v. JOSE LENI Z.
SOLIDUM, Respondent.
G.R. No. 195203 [Formerly UDK No. 14435], April
20, 2015 - ANTONIO PAGARIGAN, Petitioner, v.
ANGELITA YAGUE AND SHIRLEY ASUNCION,
Respondent.
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015aprildecisions.php?id=350
in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00) which amount is duly
annotated in TCT No. 256662.
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
[Emphasis Supplied]
On June 18, 2002, the Sandiganbayan issued the Hold Departure Order and the Order of Arrest against
Atty. Gadia and Zapanta. Both accused posted bail for their provisional liberty.5 On October 13, 2003,
Atty. Gadia was arraigned and she pleaded "Not Guilty" to the charges. Zapanta also pleaded "Not Guilty"
to the charges when arraigned on November 12, 2003. After pre-trial was terminated, trial on the merits
ensued.
The prosecution presented private complainant Dr. Manuel T. Ang, Sr. (Dr. Ang), PO3 Steve Bohol Dela
Cruz (PO3 Dela Cruz) and Atty. Asteria E. Cruzabra (Atty. Cruzabra).
Dr. Ang was a physician who was also engaged in a lending and investment business using the business
name Cebu Sterling Lending Investors, Inc. (CSLII). He recalled that sometime in January 1996, a
certain Erlinda Galvez-Sultan applied for a loan in the amount of P500,000.00 and offered to mortgage a
27,442 square-meter lot covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-256662 in the names of
Zenaida Galvez-Lamparero, Nelia Galvez Comendador, Ricardo Galvez, Pancho Galvez, Ismael Galvez,
Erlinda Galvez-Sultan, Olympio Galvez, and Edwin Galvez (Zenaida Galvez-Lamparero, et al.), to secure
the said loan. TCT No. T-256662 was registered at the Registry of Deeds of Davao City (RD) and was
duly signed by Atty. Gadia, the Register of Deeds.
Dr. Ang agreed to extend the loan and, on January 29, 1996, caused the annotation of the real estate
mortgage in favor of CSLII at the back of TCT No. T-256662 in the office of the RD. Later, Dr. Ang was
informed that the mortgaged property had been the subject of a sale transaction; that TCT No. T-256662
was already cancelled; and that two new derivative titles were issued bearing the same technical
description as that of TCT No. T-256662. On August 24, 2000, to check the veracity of the report, Dr.
Ang made a formal request to the RD for the issuance of a certified true copy of the original copy of TCT
No. T-256662 which was in the custody of the said office. He reiterated his request on October 23, 2000.
Zapanta told Dr. Ang that the original copy of TCT No. T-256662 could not be located in the particular
volume where it was filed in the vault of the RD. Dr. Ang made a follow-up on his request for three
consecutive days, but to no avail. Suspecting an irregularity, Dr. Ang filed a complaint before the
Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF), Davao Satellite Office, and requested for an
investigation. Results of the investigation confirmed that the original copy of TCT No. T-256662 was
missing from the vault of the RD. Dr. Ang then filed a complaint against Atty. Gadia and Zapanta before
the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman).6
PO3 Dela Cruz was the Chief Investigator of the Legal Department, Davao City Police Station in 2000,
after serving as the Chief Investigator of the PAOCTF, Davao Satellite Office, from 1988 to 1991. He
narrated that after conducting an investigation in connection with the complaint filed by Dr. Ang, he
prepared his Investigation Report/Memorandum and submitted the same to the Ombudsman. In the said
report, he highlighted the commission of irregularities by Zapanta and Atty. Gadia, and recommended
the filing of appropriate administrative and criminal charges against the two. He came to know of the
existence of TCT No. T-285369, the derivative title of TCT No. T-256662, when it was showed to him by
Dr. Ang during the preliminary investigation proceedings before the Ombudsman. He noticed that the
signatures of Atty. Gadia appeared on all the pages of TCT No. T-285369 and that it was registered in the
name of First Oriental Property Ventures, Inc. (FOPVI) whose president was former Congresswoman and
Governor, Atty. Corazon N. Malanyaon (Atty. Malanyaon).7
Atty. Cruzabra, the Acting Register of Deeds of Davao City, testified that while both criminal cases were
awaiting trial, she conducted an investigation regarding the missing title in compliance with the directive
of the Office of the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority (LRA), dated October 13, 2003. She
instructed the employees of the office to look for the missing original copy of TCT No. T-256662. She
specifically asked the vault keeper, Zapanta, and the records officer, who were tasked with the
safekeeping of the documents in the office, about the missing title but she was told that the same was
nowhere to be found inside the vault.
In her letter-report,8 dated November 25, 2003, addressed to Administrator Benedicto Ulep of the LRA,
Atty. Cruzabra stated that the missing TCT No. T-256662 was found in the "pending transactions" steel
cabinet located outside the vault but within the premises of the office of the RD. She observed that the
original copy of TCT No. T-256662 did not bear any signs of cancellation. She added that another
certificate of title, TCT No. T-285369, was also found within the "pending transaction" files together with
TCT No. T-256662.
Atty. Cruzabra explained that TCT No. T-285369 was issued in lieu of TCT No. T-256662 and was
registered in the name of FOPVI. She opined that TCT No. T-285369 was spurious because: 1] TCT No.
T-256662 had never been cancelled; 2] the Deed of Absolute Sale9 executed between the original
owners, Zenaida Galvez-Lamparero, et al., and FOPVI (subject deed of sale), which could have been the
basis for cancellation of TCT No. T-256662, was not registered and annotated at the back of the latter
title; and 3] the encumbrance in favor of CSLII was not carried over to TCT No. T-285369. She concluded
that the issuance of TCT No. T-285369 was without any legal basis. TCT No. T-285369 was registered
with the RD on May 28, 1997 and was signed by Atty. Gadia.10
In her defense, Atty. Gadia countered that she was no longer the Register of Deeds of Davao City on
August 24, 2000, when Dr. Ang requested for a certified true copy of the original copy of TCT No. T-
256662. She admitted that, as the Register of Deeds, she signed TCT No. T-256662 as well as the
encumbrances annotated at the back page. She also admitted that she signed the derivative title TCT No.
T-285369 on May 28, 1997, which bore the following certification: "This certificate is a transfer from
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-256662 which is cancelled by virtue hereof in so far as the above
described land is concerned."
She further testified that the original copies of the certificates of title were kept in a vault and the person
in charge was the vault keeper. The chief of the vault keeper was the records officer. She named two (2)
vault keepers, Zapanta and Mrs. Dimaquias, but the one in charge was Zapanta. She claimed that she
had nothing to do with the removal and disappearance of the original copy of TCT No. T-256662. She
identified Epimaco Gambong (Gambong) as the examiner who inspected the subject deed of sale and its
attachments, for registration. Incidentally, Gambong had already passed away at the time of the trial.
Atty. Gadia further averred that the subject deed of sale was not registered because there were some
requirements that had not been submitted, particularly the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. T-256662.
She admitted to have written the following notation on the routing slip attached to the subject deed of
sale: "Pls. don't deliver the title unless requirements are complied." She would usually write such
cautionary notice because it always took some time before the registering parties could complete the
submission of the required documents. Atty. Gadia explained that there were occasions when she had to
leave her station for some meetings in Manila or to report to Region XI where she was the Regional
Register of Deeds, and so as not to prejudice the public for want of signature, she would usually sign the
title but cautioned the examiner not to release or deliver the title until all the requirements were
completed.
2/8
12/13/2017 G.R. Nos. 192698-99, April 22, 2015 - RAYMUNDO E. ZAPANTA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. : APRIL 2015 - …
G.R. No. 194702, April 20, 2015 - SAN LORENZO
RUIZ BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS GROUP, INC. AND
OSCAR VIOLAGO, Petitioners, v. MA. CRISTINA F.
BAYANG, Respondent.
G.R. No. 216098, April 21, 2015 - BISHOP
BRODERICK S. PABILLO, DD, PABLO R. MANALASTAS,
JR., PHD, MARIA CORAZON AKOL, CONCEPCION B.
REGALADO, HECTOR A. BARRIOS, LEO Y. QUERUBIN,
AUGUSTO C. LAGMAN, FELIX P. MUGA, II, PHD, ATTY.
GREGORIO T. FABROS, EVITA L. JIMENEZ, AND JAIME
DL CARO, PHD, Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, EN BANC, REPRESENTED BY ACTING
CHAIRPERSON CHRISTIAN ROBERT S. LIM, AND
SMARTMATIC-TIM CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY
SMARTMATIC ASIA-PACIFIC PRESIDENT CESAR
FLORES, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 216562 -
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, REPRESENTED BY ITS
ACTING CHAIRPERSON ROBERT S. LIM, AND
SMARTMATIC-TIM CORPORATION, Respondent.
G.R. No. 196592, April 06, 2015 - SPOUSES JUVY
MARAÑO AND MARIA LUISA G. MARAÑO, Petitioners,
v. PRYCE GASES, INCORPORATED, Respondent.
G.R. No. 198012, April 22, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANGEL MATEO Y
JACINTO AND VICENTA LAPIZ Y MEDINA, Accused-
Appellants.
G.R. No. 202708, April 13, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VICTORIANO
VILLAR @ BOY, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 203993, April 20, 2015 - PRISCILO B. PAZ,
Petitioner, v. NEW INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
UNIVERSALITY, INC., Respondent.
G.R. No. 190112, April 22, 2015 - PRIMO CO, SR.,
EDGARDO CRUZ, FE LANNY L. ALEGADO, JESTER B.
ONGCHUAN, JOSEPH ONGCHUAN AND LUCIANNE
CHAM, Petitioners, v. THE PHILIPPINE CANINE CLUB,
INC., Respondent.
G.R. No. 172637, April 22, 2015 - OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN-VISA YAS AND EMILY ROSE KO LIM
CHAO, Petitioners, v. MARY ANN T. CASTRO,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 208163, April 20, 2015 - ROQUE B.
BENITEZ AND SANTA FE LABOR UNION-FEDERATION
OF FREE WORKERS, Petitioners, v. SANTA FE MOVING
AND RELOCATION SERVICES/VEDIT KURANGIL,
Respondent.
A.C. No. 7250 [Formerly CBD Case No. 05-1448],
April 20, 2015 - ATTY. RICARDO M. ESPINA,
Complainant, v. ATTY. JESUS G. CHAVEZ, Respondent.
G.R. No. 207328, April 20, 2015 - WILHELMSEN-
SMITH BELL MANNING/WILHELMSEN SHIP
MANAGEMENT, LTD./FAUSTO R. PREYSLER, JR.,
Petitioners, v. ALLAN SUAREZ, Respondent.
G.R. No. 164594, April 22, 2015 - MICHAEL
SEBASTIAN, Petitioner, v. ANNABEL LAGMAY NG,
REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT,
ANGELITA LAGMAY, Respondent.
G.R. No. 197712, April 20, 2015 - NONITO IMBO Y
GAMORES, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 191667, April 22, 2015 - LAND BANK OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. EDUARDO M.
CACAYURAN, Respondent, MUNICIPALITY OF AGOO,
LA UNION, Intervenor.
G.R. No. 198465, April 22, 2015 - LITEX GLASS AND
ALUMINUM SUPPLY AND/OR RONALD ONG-SITCO,
Petitioners, v. DOMINADOR B. SANCHEZ, Respondent.
G.R. Nos. 173148, April 06, 2015 - ELSA DEGAYO,
Petitioner, v. CECILIA MAGBANUA-DINGLASAN,
JOHNNY DINGLASAN, ASUNCION MAGBANUA-
PORRAS, MARIANO PASCUALITO AND AMADO JR., ALL
SURNAMED MAGBANUA, Respondent.
G.R. No. 194061, April 20, 2015 - EMELIE L.
BESAGA, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES FELIPE ACOSTA AND
LUZVIMINDA ACOSTA AND DIGNA MATALANG
COCHING, Respondent.
G.R. No. 183587, April 20, 2015 - LEXBER, INC.,
Petitioner, v. CAESAR M. AND CONCHITA B. DALMAN,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 193101, April 20, 2015 - NICANOR
CERIOLA, Petitioner, v. NAESS SHIPPING
PHILIPPINES, INC., MIGUEL OCA AND/OR KUWAIT
OIL TANKER, Respondent.
G.R. No. 198356, April 20, 2015 - ESPERANZA
SUPAPO AND THE HEIRS OF ROMEO SUPAPO,
NAMELY: ESPERANZA, REX EDWARD, RONALD TROY,
ROMEO, JR., SHEILA LORENCE, ALL SURNAMED
SUPAPO, AND SHERYL FORTUNE SUPAPO-SANDIGAN,
Petitioners, v. SPOUSES ROBERTO AND SUSAN DE
JESUS, MACARIO BERNARDO, AND THOSE PERSONS
CLAIMING RIGHTS UNDER THEM, Respondent.
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015aprildecisions.php?id=350
According to her, TCT No. T-285369 should not have been delivered because certain requirements were
still lacking. She asserted that transactions, which were not completed or transactions in which the
requirements were not complied with, were filed in the "pending transaction" cabinets. She denied
knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the issuance of TCT No. T-285369 despite her signature on
it.11
Zapanta, on the other hand, proffered the defense of denial. He alleged that he was the vault keeper of
the RD, whose duty was to safeguard the archives and the original copies of certificates of title. He
claimed that the original copy of a title could be pulled out from the vault upon the written request of the
examiner or records officer, indicating the title and volume numbers. The said officer would then take
custody of the same until the transaction would be finished. He stated that Atty. Gadia, being the
Register of Deeds, could also order the pull out of the documents from the vault. He denied participation
in the removal and disappearance of the original copy of TCT No. T-256662 from the vault. He insisted
that he did not participate in the processing of TCT No. T-285369. He pointed out that aside from him,
three utility workers were allowed by his office to pull out titles from the vault. His only link to the
missing title incident was that he was the one who helped Jimboy Ibafiez, the person approached by Dr.
Ang, to look for the missing title. He assured Dr. Ang that he would continue to look for it. He denied that
he conspired with Atty. Gadia in the commission of the crimes charged.12
On rebuttal, the prosecution presented two additional witnesses, namely, Jorlyn B. Paralisan (Paralisan)
and Johanessa Maceda (Maceda).
Paralisan testified that she was the Land Registration Examiner from March 1992 until March 1998. The
primary function of an examiner was to determine whether the requirements for registration were
complete. The documents that must be presented for the registration of a sale of real property were the
transfer tax fee, realty tax certification, capital gains tax certification, deed of sale and the owner's
duplicate copy of the certificate of title. She said that if the requirements were incomplete, the
documents so far submitted shall be placed in the files for "pending transactions" until full compliance
was made by the registering party. Paralisan added that the Register of Deeds reviewed the findings of
the examiner and signed the title or document only after the latter was satisfied as to the completeness
of the requirements. As the Register of Deeds of Davao City, Atty. Gadia was tasked, among others, to
review deeds and other documents for compliance with the legal requirements of registration.
According to Paralisan, her office has adopted the following regular procedural steps in the registration of
land titles and deeds: 1) the presenting party would first bring the deed of sale and its attachments to
the entry clerk, who would stamp the corresponding entry number, as well as the date and time of
receipt; 2) the submitted documents would then go to the cashier for payment of registration and other
fees; 3) thereafter, the documents would be handed to a Records Officer II who would assign an
examiner for examination; 4) if the documents were complete, the same would go to the administrative
officer for assignment of title, otherwise, the documents would be forwarded to Records Officer II for
stamping of the words, "pending document"; 5) for complete documents, the administrative officer would
assign a new title for typing by the office typist; 6) the document would afterwards be returned to the
Records Officer II, who would assign another examiner for the cancellation of the mother title; 7) after
the proper cancellation of the mother title, the new title and other pertinent documents would then be
submitted to the Register of Deeds for review, examination and signature; 8) then the documents would
go to Record Officer I, who would release the owner's duplicate copy of the title to the presenting party
and forward the original copies of the new title and the cancelled title to the vault keeper for archiving.
The above procedure was sanctioned by the Manual for Registration of Land Titles and Deeds of the LRA.
Continuing her testimony, Paralisan recalled that when she examined the documents for registration in
1997, the reference and assessment slip/routing slip did not contain any handwritten notations. After
noting the attached documents to the subject deed of sale, she wrote down on the slip, "Pls. submit
owner's copy of TCT," and forwarded all the documents to the administrative officer. She claimed that
because the documents were incomplete, the title should be kept in the "pending transaction" cabinet by
Records Officer II, who was Maceda at the time in 1997.
Paralisan further stated that it was vault keeper Brigido Musqueta who found the missing original copy of
TCT No. T-256662 in the "pending transaction" files. Upon inspection of the documents, she noticed that
the entry number and the date "5-28-1997" were handwritten on the face of the reference and
assessment slip/routing slip.13 She found it odd that the date of registration, May 28, 1997, was the
same as the date written on the reference and assessment slip. Furthermore, the name "Mr. Gambong"
was also written after the word "Examiner." She claimed that these entries were in the handwriting of
Atty. Gadia. When following proper procedure, it should have been the entry clerk who would stamp the
entry number and the date of receipt of the document/s for registration on the reference and assessment
slip. Also, it should have been the records officer who would assign an examiner to determine the
registrability of the document. She noticed too that the slip now bore the handwritten notation of Atty.
Gadia, "Pls. don't deliver title unless requirements are complied." She clarified that the so-called
cautionary notice by Atty. Gadia was never recognized in the regular procedure for registration of land
titles and deeds. She observed that there was obvious deviation from the procedure because despite the
non-submission of the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. T-256662, the derivative title was still signed
and registered by Atty. Gadia.14
Maceda testified that she was appointed Records Officer II on March 2, 1998. She stated that, contrary to
the testimony of Paralisan, she was only the Clerk II in 1997. The Records Officer II was responsible for
assigning the documents submitted for registration to an examiner for further scrutiny. If the documents
were not complete, the examiner would give them to the administrative officer who, in turn, would
forward them to the Records Officer II for safekeeping in the "pending transaction" files. Maceda averred
that Atty. Gadia had access to the documents in the "pending transaction" files. She claimed that her
logbook or record book did not contain any entry involving TCT No. T-256662.15
By way of surrebuttal evidence, the defense presented Atty. Malanyaon who testified to the supposed
satisfaction of any pecuniary damage suffered by Dr. Ang. The prosecution strongly objected and moved
that her testimony be stricken off the record on the ground that it absolutely had no connection with the
proof presented on rebuttal. The Sandiganbayan merely noted the opposition and motion of the
prosecution.16
The Sandiganbayan Decision
On October 29, 2009, the Sandiganbayan rendered the assailed decision finding Atty. Gadia and Zapanta
guilty as charged. The anti-graft court stated that the prosecution was able to satisfactorily establish the
elements of Violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019, as well as the elements of Violation of Art. 226 of
the RPC. It found sufficient evidence inculpating Atty. Gadia and Zapanta for conspiring and
confederating with one another in the anomalous registration and issuance of TCT No. T-285369 in favor
of FOPVI, which resulted in undue injury to private complainant Dr. Ang in the sum of P500,000.00. Also,
it held that Atty. Gadia and Zapanta conspired with each other in causing the removal and disappearance
of the original copy of TCT No. T-256662 from the vault of the RD, which was then under their official
custody, to the damage and prejudice of the mortgagee, Dr. Ang. The dispositive portion of the said
decision reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered:
3/8
12/13/2017 G.R. Nos. 192698-99, April 22, 2015 - RAYMUNDO E. ZAPANTA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. : APRIL 2015 - …
G.R. No. 206540, April 20, 2015 - ALICE G. AFRICA,
Petitioner, v. INSURANCE SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT
AGENCY, INC. (ISIA) REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDENT, DELIA DE BORJA; ACTING REGISTER OF
DEEDS, LAS PINAS CITY, ATTY. ABRAHAM N.
VERMUDEZ, Respondents.
G.R. No. 196357, April 20, 2015 - THE HEIRS OF
THE LATE DELFIN DELA CRUZ, REPRESENTED BY HIS
SPOUSE, CARMELITA DELA CRUZ, Petitioners, v.
PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC.,
REPRESENTED BY MR. CARLOS C. SALINAS AND/OR
TECTO BELGIUM N.V., Respondent.
G.R. No. 204171, April 15, 2015 - OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. WILFREDO B. AGUSTINO,
RUDY G. CANASTILLO, EDWARD G. CANASTILLO,
CECIL C. CALIGAN, Respondent.
G.R. No. 206020, April 14, 2015 - 1-UNITED
TRANSPORT KOALISYON (1-UTAK), Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
G.R. No. 174202, April 07, 2015 - DYNAMIC
BUILDERS & CONSTRUCTION CO. (PHIL.), INC.,
Petitioner, v. HON. RICARDO P. PRESBITERO, JR.,
MAYOR AND HEAD OF PROCURING UNIT OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OF VALLADOLID, NEGROS
OCCIDENTAL; BIDS AND AWARDS COMMITTEE,
MUNICIPALITY OF VALLADOLID, NEGROS
OCCIDENTAL; AND HENRY L. JORDAN AND/OR HLJ
CONSTRUCTION AND ENTERPRISE, Respondents.
G.R. No. 208062, April 07, 2015 - SOCIAL WEATHER
STATIONS, INC. AND PULSE ASIA, INC., Petitioners, v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
A.M. No. RTJ-14-2402 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 12-
3910-RTJ), April 15, 2015 - JOSEFINA M.
ONGCUANGCO TRADING CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY JOSEFINA M. ONGCUANGCO,
Complainant, v. JUDGE RENATO D. PINLAC, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 57, SAN CARLOS CITY,
PANGASINAN, Respondent.
G.R. No. 211833, April 07, 2015 - FERDINAND R.
VILLANUEVA, PRESIDING JUDGE, MCTC,
COMPOSTELA-NEW BATAAN, COMPOSTELA VALLEY
PROVINCE, Petitioner, v. JUDICIAL AND BAR
COUNCIL, Respondent.
G. R. No. 171601, April 08, 2015 - SPOUSES
BONIFACIO AND LUCIA PARAS, Petitioners, v. KIMWA
CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Respondent.
G.R. Nos. 194339-41, April 20, 2015 - TERESITA A.
CIRON, Petitioner, v. MA. MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ,
IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN,
FLORIZA A. BRIONES AND TERESITA P. BUTARDO-
TACATA, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS GRAFT
INVESTIGATION & PROSECUTION OFFICER II OF THE
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, NONNA O. BELTRAN,
2nd ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR, RAUL E.
CONTRERAS, CITY PROSECUTOR, BOTH OF NATIONAL
PROSECUTION OFFICE, IRIGA CITY, AND SANTIAGO
D. ORTEGA, JR., Respondent.
G.R. No. 213214, April 20, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EUGENE SAMUYA,
Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 213216, April 20, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICKY ARGUTA
ALIAS "JOEL" AND WILSON CAHIPE ALIAS "SIWIT,"
Accused-Appellants.
A.C. No. 10303, April 22, 2015 - JOY A. GIMENO,
Complainant, v. ATTY. PAUL CENTILLAS ZAIDE,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 203530, April 13, 2015 - LUZON
DEVELOPMENT BANK, TOMAS CLEMENTE, JR., AND
OSCAR RAMIREZ, Petitioners, v. ERLINDA KRISHNAN,
Respondent.
A.M. No. RTJ-12-2325 (Formerly A.M. No. 12-7-
132-RTC), April 14, 2015 - OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. JUDGE ALAN L.
FLORES, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 7, TUBOD, LANAO DEL NORTE AND FORMER
ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 21, KAPATAGAN, LANAO DEL NORTE,
Respondent.; A.M. No. RTJ-15-2419 (FORMERLY A.M.
OCA IPI No. 11-3649-RTJ) - PROSECUTOR DIOSDADO
D. CABRERA, Complainant, v. JUDGE ALAN L. FLORES,
PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH
7, TUBOD, LANAO DEL NORTE AND FORMER ACTING
PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH
21, KAPATAGAN, LANAO DEL NORTE, Respondent.
G.R. No. 189649, April 20, 2015 - ADORACION
CAROLINO (SPOUSE AND IN SUBSTITUTION OF THE
DECEASED JEREMIAS A. CAROLINO), Petitioner, v.
GEN. GENEROSO SENGA, AS CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE
ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES (AFP); BRIG.
GEN. FERNANDO ZABAT, AS CHIEF OF THE AFP
FINANCE CENTER; COMMO. REYNALDO BASILIO, AS
CHIEF OF THE AFP-GHQ MANAGEMENT AND FISCAL
OFFICE; AND COMMO. EMILIO MARAYAG, PENSION
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015aprildecisions.php?id=350
a.) In Criminal Case No. 27502, finding accused ALUDIA P. GADIA and RAYMUNDO E.
ZAPANTA, GUILTY, beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of violation of Section 3
(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, and after applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, hereby sentences each of
them to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1)
month as minimum to ten (10) years as maximum;
b.) In Criminal Case No. 27503, finding accused ALUDIA P. GADIA and RAYMUNDO E.
ZAPANTA, GUILTY, beyond reasonable doubt of Infidelity in the Custody of
Documents, particularly violation of Article 226 of the Revised Penal Code, or removal
or concealment of documents and hereby sentences each of them to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from four (4) years and two (2)
months of prision correctional as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of
prision mayor as maximum, and to pay a fine of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00).
c.) To indemnify, jointly and severally, private complainant Dr. Manuel T. Ang, in the
amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
d.) Accused Aludia P. Gadia and Raymundo E. Zapanta, being public officers, are
henceforth perpetually disqualified from holding public office.
SO ORDERED.17 cralawlawlibrary
Zapanta moved for the reconsideration of the foregoing judgment but his motion was denied by the
Sandiganbayan in its June 10, 2010 Resolution.
Hence, this petition. chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The Issues
Zapanta imputes to the Sandiganbayan the following errors:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Criminal Case No. 27503, Violation of Article 226 of the Revised Penal Code
I. The Sandiganbayan erred in not ruling that the petitioner had no custody [of] the
Original Copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-256662 (marked as Exhibit "V-
Rebuttal") while outside the vault.
II. The Sandiganbayan erred in not ruling that the petitioner could not have "removed"
the subject record (Original Copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-256662
marked as Exhibit "V-Rebuttal"), as it was not in his custody in the first place.
III. The Sandiganbayan erred in not ruling that the Original Copy of Transfer Certificate
of Title No. T-256662 (marked as Exhibit "V-Rebuttal") was not lost.
IV. The Sandiganbayan erred in not ruling that there was no proof of conspiracy and
there was no certainty that it was the petitioner who pulled out that Original Copy
of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-256662 (marked as Exhibit "V-Rebuttal").
Criminal Case No. 27502 Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended
V. The Sandiganbayan erred in not ruling that the petitioner had no physical custody of
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T- 256662 (marked as Exhibit "A") since the time it
was pulled out from the vault until it was found.
VI. The Sandiganbayan erred in not ruling that the participation of the alleged crime
committed by his co-accused, Atty. Gadia, was not necessary and indispensable in the
alleged perpetuation thereof.
VII. The Sandiganbayan erred in not ruling that the petitioner had no participation in the
review of Deed of Absolute Sale (marked as Exhibit "U-Rebuttal"); the release of the
form of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-285369 (marked as Exhibit "J"); the typing,
review, and approval of the entries of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-285369
(marked as Exhibit "J"); the release of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-285369
(marked as Exhibit "J") to its purported new owner; and the safekeeping of Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-256662 (marked as Exhibit "A") while outside the vault; and
thus he could not have committed the crime of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic
Act No. 3019, as amended, by himself or in conspiracy with Atty. Gadia.
VIII.The Sandiganbayan erred in not ruling that the crime committed, if ever there was
any, was only criminal negligence, not violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No.
3019, as amended.18
Zapanta's assignment of errors can be condensed into two: 1] whether or not the prosecution was able
to establish his guilt of the offenses charged beyond reasonable doubt; and 2] whether or not there was
sufficient evidence to support the charge of conspiracy between him and Atty. Gadia. chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The Court's Ruling
The petition is impressed with merit.
At the outset, it has been emphasized that, as a rule, the Court does not review factual questions in
petitions under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. In appeals from the Sandiganbayan decisions, only
questions of law and not issues of fact may be raised. Issues on whether the prosecution evidence
proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; whether the presumption of innocence was
properly accorded the accused; whether there was sufficient evidence to support a charge of conspiracy;
or whether the defense of good faith was correctly appreciated are all, in varying degrees, questions of
fact.19 As a rule, the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are conclusive on this Court, subject to the
following limited exceptions: 1] the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises,
and conjectures; 2] the inference made is manifestly mistaken; 3] there is grave abuse of discretion; 4.)
the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; and 5] the findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan are
premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by evidence on record.20 The foregoing
instances attend the case at bench.
This Court spelled out in Ampil v. Office of the Ombudsman21 the following elements of the offense falling
under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
1] The offender is a public officer;
2] The act was done in the discharge of the public officer's official, administrative or
judicial functions;
3] The act was done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable
negligence; and
4] The public officer caused any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or
gave any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference.22
On the other hand, in Fajelga v. Hon. Escareal,23 an accused may be held criminally liable of Infidelity in
the Custody of Documents under Article 226 of the RPC, provided that the following elements are
present:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
4/8
12/13/2017 G.R. Nos. 192698-99, April 22, 2015 - RAYMUNDO E. ZAPANTA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. : APRIL 2015 - …
AND GRATUITY OFFICER, PENSION AND GRATUITY
MANAGEMENT CENTER, AFP FINANCE CENTER,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 183641, April 22, 2015 - BENJAMIN
GUERRERO, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, LAND
MANAGEMENT BUREAU, FLORANTE EDWARD R.
BENITEZ, PROJECT EVALUATION OFFICER III, LEGAL
DIVISION; AND HEIRS OF MARCELO BUSTAMANTE,
REPRESENTED BY CORA Z. BUSTAMANTE, Respondent.
G.R. No. 205188, April 22, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY HONORABLE
LOURDES M. TRASMONTE IN HER CAPACITY AS
UNDERSECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
AND EMPLOYMENT, AND AHONORABLE JENNIFER
JARDIN-MANALILI, IN HER CAPACITY AS THEN
PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT
ADMINISTRATOR, Petitioner, v. HUMANLINK
MANPOWER CONSULTANTS, INC. (FORMERLY MHY
NEW RECRUITMENT INTERNATIONAL, INC.),
Respondent.
G.R. No. 182805, April 22, 2015 - HEIRS OF
SERAPIO MABBORANG: LAURIANO MABBORANG,
DOMINGO MABBORANG, ENCARNACION MABBORANG,
FELIX MABBORANG, FAUSTINA MABBORANG, ELIAS
MABBORANG, ALBERTA MABBORANG; HEIRS OF
REGINO MABBORANG: JOSE MABBORANG, DIONICIA
MABBORANG, SOTERA MABBORANG, MARIANO
MABBORANG; HEIRS OF SUSANA MABBORANG:
CECILIA UBINA-OCAB AND CANDIDA U. TAGUIGA;
SEGUNDA MABBORANG; HEIRS OF VICTORINO
MABBORANG: JUAN MABBORANG, JR., SERVANDO
MABBORANG; AND HEIRS OF VICENTE MABBORANG:
MARIANO MABBORANG, MARTIN MABBORANG, LUZ
MABBORANG-CARILLO, Petitioners, v. HERMOGENES
MABBORANG AND BENJAMIN MABBORANG,
Respondent.
A.M. No. P-12-3092 (Formerly A.M. No. 12-7-54-
MTC), April 14, 2015 - OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. REMEDIOS R.
VIESCA, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURT OF SAN ANTONIO, NUEVA ECIJA, Respondent.
G.R. Nos. 211933 & 211960, April 15, 2015 -
ROBERTA S. SALDARIEGA, Petitioner, v. HON. ELVIRA
D.C. PANGANIBAN, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 227,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, NATIONAL CAPITAL
REGION, QUEZON CITY AND PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 179334, April 21, 2015 - SECRETARY OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND
HIGHWAYS AND DISTRICT ENGINEER CELESTINO R.
CONTRERAS, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES HERACLEO AND
RAMONA TECSON, Respondents.
G.R. No. 201146, April 15, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. MICHAEL ROS Y ORTEGA,
RODOLFO JUSTO, JR. Y CALIFLORES, AND DAVID
NAVARRO Y MINAS, Appellants.
A.C. No. 9868 [formerly CBD Case No. 05-1617],
April 22, 2015 - ATTY. ALFREDO L. VILLAMOR, JR.,
Complainant, v. ATTYS. E. HANS A. SANTOS AND
AGNES H. MARANAN, Respondents.
G.R. No. 200465, April 20, 2015 - JOCELYN ASISTIO
Y CONSINO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES AND MONICA NEALIGA, Respondent.
G.R. Nos. 192698-99, April 22, 2015 - RAYMUNDO
E. ZAPANTA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 197597, April 08, 2015 - IN THE MATTER
OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF DATUKAN
MALANG SALIBO, DATUKAN MALANG SALIBO,
Petitioner, v. WARDEN, QUEZON CITY JAIL ANNEX,
BJMP BUILDING, CAMP BAGONG DIWA, TAGUIG CITY
AND ALL OTHER PERSONS ACTING ON HIS BEHALF
AND/OR HAVING CUSTODY OF DATUKAN MALANG
SALIBO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 159611, April 22, 2015 - HEIRS OF
ANTERO SOLIVA, Petitioner, v. SEVERINO, JOEL,
GRACE, CENON, JR., RENATO, EDUARDO, HILARIO,
ALL SURNAMED SOLIVA, ROGELIO V. ROLEDA, AND
SANVIC ENTERPRISES, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGER, SANTOS PORAQUE, Respondents.
G.R. No. 212381, April 22, 2015 - REYNALDO M.
JACOMILLE, Petitioner, v. HON. JOSEPH EMILIO A.
ABAYA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS (DOTC);
ATTY. ALFONSO V. TAN, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE LAND
TRANSPORTATION OFFICE (LTO); HON. FLORENCIO
ABAD, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF BUDGET
AND MANAGEMENT (DBM); HON. ARSENIO M.
BALISACAN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR
GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC AND
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NEDA); HON. MARIA
GRACIA M. PULIDO TAN, IN HER CAPACITY AS
CHAIRPERSON OF THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA)
AND POWER PLATES DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS,
INC.,/J. KNIERIEM B.V. GOES (JKG) (JOINT
VENTURE) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR, CHRISTIAN S. CALALANG, Respondents.
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015aprildecisions.php?id=350
1] The offender must be a public officer;
2] There must be a document abstracted, destroyed or concealed;
3] The document destroyed or abstracted must be entrusted to such public officer by
reason of his office; and
4] Damage or prejudice to the public interest or to that of a third person must be caused
by the removal, destruction or concealment of such document.24
In convicting Atty. Gadia for Violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, the Sandiganbayan held that the
series of acts she had performed in obvious disregard to the established rules in land registration were
badges of evident bad faith and manifest partiality towards FOPVI. According to the anti-graft court,
scandalous irregularities in the procedure were committed by Atty. Gadia in registering and issuing the
derivative title, TCT No. T-285369, but without the proper cancellation of TCT No. T-256662, and the
carrying over of the mortgage encumbrance annotated as Entry No. 930010 in the latter title in favor of
mortgagee Dr. Ang. In so doing, she gave unwarranted benefit, advantage and preference to FOPVI, to
the damage and injury of Dr. Ang in the sum of P500,000.00.
Anent the charge of Infidelity in the Custody of Document, the Sandiganbayan held that Atty. Gadia, who
was entrusted with the safekeeping of TCT No. T-256662, caused the removal of its original copy from
the vault of the RD and, thereafter, concealed the same to facilitate the issuance of TCT No. T-285369.
This caused damage to Dr. Ang and eroded public trust and confidence in the Register of Deeds. Citing
the case of Kataniag v. People,25 the Sandiganbayan wrote that damage under Art. 226 of the RPC may
also consist in mere alarm to the public or in the alienation of its confidence in any government agency.
The Sandiganbayan added that Atty. Gadia's act of concealing TCT No. T-256662 constituted a breach of
trust in the official care of the said certificate of title.
Regarding the guilty verdict against Zapanta, the vault keeper, the Sandiganbayan explained that the
series of acts of Atty. Gadia would not have been completed or their criminal purpose would not have
been achieved were it not for the disappearance of the original copy of TCT No. T-256662 from the vault
which was amply covered by the active participation of the said petitioner. It added that those series of
acts smacked of conspiracy which showed their common design to achieve one common goal to the
damage and prejudice of Dr. Ang. The pith of the assailed October 29, 2009 decision of the
Sandiganbayan relative to Zapanta's criminal liabilities states: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Verily, where the acts of the accused collectively and individually demonstrate the
existence of a common design towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose,
conspiracy is evident, and all the perpetrators will be liable as principals. While it may be
true that accused Zapanta did not sign in any of the two (2) titles, he nevertheless had
allowed that TCT No. T-256662, be withdrawn or removed from the vault which he was
expected to safekeep and thereafter allowed that the same be concealed not only from the
private complainant but also from the public.
This Court gives weight and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The
strength of their testimonies was bolstered by the details shown in the documentary
evidence that they have presented. They testified to the effect that the title indeed was
missing for a certain period of time and that accused Gadia issued a new title without the
mortgage being cancelled. They demonstrated how these were made possible by the
concerted efforts of accused Gadia, as Register of Deeds, and accused Zapanta, as the
Vault Keeper.26cralawlawlibrary
A judicious examination of the evidence on record belies the findings and conclusions of the
Sandiganbayan with respect to the criminal culpability of Zapanta.
In People v. Bautista,27 the Court had the occasion to elaborately discuss the concept of conspiracy, to
wit:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Judge Learned Hand once called conspiracy "the darling of the modern prosecutor's
nursery." There is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and
decide to commit it. Conspiracy as a mode of incurring criminal liability must be
proven separately from and with the same quantum of proof as the crime itself.
Conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence. After all, secrecy and concealment are
essential features of a successful conspiracy. Conspiracies are clandestine in nature. It
may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the
commission of the crime, showing that they had acted with a common purpose
and design. Paraphrasing the decision of the English Court in Regina v. Murphy,
conspiracy may be implied if it is proved that two or more persons aimed by their acts
towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their
combined acts, though apparently independent of each other, were, in fact, connected and
cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment.
To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be
shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the
complicity. There must be intentional participation in the transaction with a view
to the furtherance of the common design and purpose. [Emphases Supplied]
To reiterate, in order to hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be
shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. Conspiracy can be
inferred from, and established by, the acts of the accused themselves when said acts point to a joint
purpose and design, concerted action and community of interests. What is determinative is proof
establishing that the accused were animated by one and the same purpose.28 There must be intentional
participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.
Conspiracy must, like the crime itself, be proven beyond reasonable doubt29 for it is a facile device by
which an accused may be ensnared and kept within the penal fold. Suppositions based on mere
presumptions and not on solid facts do not constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.30
In the case at bench, the Court finds that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
Zapanta conspired with Atty. Gadia in committing the crimes charged. No testimonial or documentary
evidence was presented to substantiate Zapanta's direct or indirect participation in the anomalous
registration of TCT No. T-285369, and in the concealment/disappearance of the original copy of TCT No.
T-256662.
Not a scintilla of proof was adduced to show with absolute certainty that Zapanta was the one who
actually withdrew the original copy of TCT No. T-256662 from the vault of the RD.31 Prosecution witness
Atty. Cruzabra testified that there were several vault keepers in the RD31 and they were all authorized to
pull out titles from the vault at the instance of the examiner or the records officer.32 The prosecution's
rebuttal witness, Paralisan, testified that there were five personnel employed as vault keepers but she
could not pinpoint who among those vault keepers pulled out the original copy of TCT No. T-256662 from
the vault.33 At best, the prosecution witnesses only identified Zapanta as a vault keeper of the RD but
not necessarily the vault keeper who pulled out the subject title. Prosecution witnesses neither testified
that he was present during the withdrawal of the subject title from the vault nor mentioned or referred to
Zapanta in any manner to show his probable complicity or involvement in the crimes charged. Further,
there is no showing that Zapanta was instrumental or that he ever participated in the registration process
of the spurious derivative title or had foreknowledge of any irregularity therein or of its fraudulent nature.
5/8
12/13/2017 G.R. Nos. 192698-99, April 22, 2015 - RAYMUNDO E. ZAPANTA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. : APRIL 2015 - …
G.R. No. 202331, April 22, 2015 - THE PROVINCIAL
GOVERNMENT OF AURORA, Petitioner, v. HILARIO M.
MARCO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 197562, April 20, 2015 - AURORA ENGSON
FRANSDILLA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 180771, April 21, 2015 - RESIDENT
MARINE MAMMALS OF THE PROTECTED SEASCAPE
TANON STRAIT, E.G., TOOTHED WHALES, DOLPHINS,
PORPOISES, AND OTHER CETACEAN SPECIES, JOINED
IN AND REPRESENTED HEREIN BY HUMAN BEINGS
GLORIA ESTENZO RAMOS AND ROSE-LIZA EISMA-
OSORIO, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS LEGAL GUARDIANS
OF THE LESSER LIFE-FORMS AND AS RESPONSIBLE
STEWARDS OF GOD'S CREATIONS, Petitioners, v.
SECRETARY ANGELO REYES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE),
SECRETARY JOSE L. ATIENZA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR), LEONARDO R.
SIBBALUCA, DENR REGIONAL DIRECTOR-REGION VII
AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRPERSON OF THE
TANON STRAIT PROTECTED SEASCAPE MANAGEMENT
BOARD, BUREAU OF FISHERIES AND AQUATIC
RESOURCES (BFAR), DIRECTOR MALCOLM I.
SARMIENTO, JR., BFAR REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR
REGION VII ANDRES M. BOJOS, JAPAN PETROLEUM
EXPLORATION CO., LTD. (JAPEX), AS REPRESENTED
BY ITS PHILIPPINE AGENT, SUPPLY OILFIELD
SERVICES, INC., Respondents.; G.R. No. 181527 -
CENTRAL VISAYAS FISHERFOLK DEVELOPMENT
CENTER (FIDEC), CERILO D. ENGARCIAL, RAMON
YANONG, FRANCISCO LABID, IN THEIR PERSONAL
CAPACITY AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
SUBSISTENCE FISHERFOLKS OF THE MUNICIPALITIES
OF ALOGUINSAN AND PINAMUNGAJAN, CEBU, AND
THEIR FAMILIES, AND THE PRESENT AND FUTURE
GENERATIONS OF FILIPINOS WHOSE RIGHTS ARE
SIMILARLY AFFECTED, Petitioners, v. SECRETARY
ANGELO REYES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE), JOSE L.
ATIENZA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES (DENR), LEONARDO R. SIBBALUCA, IN
HIS CAPACITY AS DENR REGIONAL DIRECTOR-
REGION VII AND AS CHAIRPERSON OF THE TAÑON
STRAIT PROTECTED SEASCAPE MANAGEMENT BOARD,
ALAN ARRANGUEZ, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU-REGION
VII, DOE REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR REGION VIII1
ANTONIO LABIOS, JAPAN PETROLEUM EXPLORATION
CO., LTD. (JAPEX), AS REPRESENTED BY ITS
PHILIPPINE AGENT, SUPPLY OILFIELD SERVICES,
INC., Respondent.
G.R. No. 202950, April 06, 2015 - BALTAZAR IBOT,
Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF FRANCISCO TAYCO,
REPRESENTED BY FLORA TAYCO, WILLY TAYCO AND
MERLYN T. BULANTE, Respondents.
G.R. No. 187013, April 22, 2015 - SPOUSES
MAGDALINO AND CLEOFE BADILLA, Petitioners, v. FE
BRAGAT, Respondent.
G.R. No. 194642, April 06, 2015 - NUNELON R.
MARQUEZ, Petitioner, v. ELISAN CREDIT
CORPORATION, Respondents.
A.M. No. 07-11-14-SC, April 14, 2015 - RE: LETTER
OF ERLINDA ILUSORIO-BILDNER, POTC,
PHILCOMSAT, REQUESTING INVESTIGATION OF
CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY
G.R. No. 209331, April 24, 2015 - DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE, REPRESENTED BY HON. CESAR V.
PURISIMA IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
SECRETARY, AND THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS,
REPRESENTED BY HON. ROZZANO RUFINO B. BIAZON,
IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF
CUSTOMS, Petitioners, v. HON. MARINO M. DELA
CRUZ, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE JUDGE,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANILA, HON. FELICITAS O.
LARON-CACANINDIN, IN HER CAPACITY AS
PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
MANILA, BRANCH 17, RONNIE C. SILVESTRE,
EDWARD P. DELA CUESTA, ROGEL C. GATCHALIAN,
IMELDA D.CRUZ, LILIBETH S. SANDAG, RAYMOND P.
VENTURA, MA. LIZA S. TORRES, ARNEL C. ALCARAZ,
MA. LOURDES V. MANGAOANG, FRANCIS AGUSTIN Y.
ERPE, CARLOS T. SO, MARIETTA D. ZAMORANOS,
CARMELITA M. TALUSAN,1 AREFILES H. CARREON,2
AND ROMALINO G. VALDEZ, Respondents.
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015aprildecisions.php?id=350
Granting, in gratia argumenti, that it was Zapanta who took the original copy of TCT No. T-256662 from
the vault, this alone would not suffice to prove the conspiracy theory advanced by the prosecution.
Plainly, the accusation against Zapanta rests upon his alleged act of pulling out the subject title from the
vault which the Sandiganbayan considered as necessary for Atty. Gadia to attain her criminal design of
entering TCT No. T-285369 in the Registry Book of the RD in the name of FOPVI and concealing the
original copy of TCT No. T-256662 to prevent the discovery of the aberrant registration of the said
derivative title. The only deduction extant from the prosecution evidence is that, being then the vault
keeper, Zapanta had the duty to safeguard the documents kept inside the vault and to withdraw any title
therefrom upon the request of any proper officer of the RD.
It must be emphasized, however, that what he did here was the very function he had to discharge in the
performance of his official duties. Also, once the title was released from his custody, his responsibility
ceased and it then devolved upon the recipient to keep the document until the transaction was finished.
Hence, Zapanta could not be faulted if after the subject title was released to the requestor, it was
subsequently utilized in the furtherance of an illegal and fraudulent design as he had no control or
participation over the registration process or in the issuance of TCT No. T-285369.
Verily, it is also too sweeping to conclude the existence of conspiracy against Zapanta from the evidence
on record. Besides, a public officer is presumed to have acted in good faith in the performance of his
duties. Well-settled is the rule that good faith is always presumed and the Chapter on Human Relations
of the Civil Code directs every person, inter alia, to observe good faith which springs from the fountain of
good conscience.34 The burden is on the prosecution to prove bad faith on the part of Zapanta or that he
was impelled by malice or some evil motive but the prosecution failed to do that. To repeat, it is sheer
speculation to perceive and ascribe corrupt intent and conspiracy of wrongdoing for Violation of Section
3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and Violation of Article 226 of the RFC, solely from the mere pulling out of a title
from the vault of the RD because Zapanta was just performing one of his duties as a vault keeper.
The Sandiganbayan believed that Zapanta took part in the conspiracy to commit the offenses charged
because of the following circumstances: 1] Zapanta was then the vault keeper and as such had access to
the certificates of title kept therein; 2] It was the official duty of Zapanta to pull out a title from the vault
upon request of authorized and proper officers of the RD; 3] Dr. Ang was informed by Zapanta that the
original copy of TCT No. T-256662 could not be found in the particular volume where it was supposed to
have been filed inside the vault and that he promised to look for the missing title; and 4] Zapanta
confirmed during the preliminary hearing at the PAOCTF-Davao Satellite Office that the subject title was
indeed missing.
An accused may be convicted on the basis of credible and sufficient circumstantial evidence provided that
the proven circumstances lead to the inescapable and reasonable conclusion that he committed the
imputed crime. The settled rule is that a judgment of conviction based purely on circumstantial evidence
cam be upheld only if the following requisites concur: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the
facts from which the inferences were derived were proven; and (3) the combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt.35 The corollary rule is that the
circumstances proven must constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable
conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person.36
Here, the pieces of circumstantial evidence are not sufficient to convict Zapanta of the crimes charged.
When the four circumstances are examined with the other evidence on record, it becomes clearer that
these circumstances do not lead to a logical conclusion that Zapanta lent support to the alleged
conspiracy. Moreover, there is no proof that he allowed an outsider inside the vault or that he knew of
the unauthorized withdrawal of the subject title and consented to it. There is nothing to indicate that he
was simply negligent in securing the safety of the subject certificate of title under his custody. If Zapanta
were negligent, this would be incompatible with conspiracy because negligence denotes the absence of
intent while conspiracy involves a meeting of the minds to commit a crime.37
Clearly, the Sandiganbayan had no basis to convict Zapanta because the prosecution failed to produce
the evidence necessary to overturn the presumption of innocence. Proof, not mere conjectures or
assumptions, should be proffered to indicate that he had taken part in the alleged conspiracy to commit
the crimes charged. Otherwise, a careless use of the conspiracy theory could send to jail even innocent
persons who may have only been made unwitting tools by the criminal minds really responsible for those
irregularities.
The evidence adduced must be closely examined under the lens of the judicial microscope and that
conviction flows only from moral certainty that guilt had been established by proof beyond reasonable
doubt. In the case at bench, that quantum of proof has not been satisfied. Hence, the Court must reckon
with a dictum of the law, in dubilis reus est absolvendus. All doubts must be resolved in favor of the
accused. cralawred
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed October 29, 2009 Decision and the June 10, 2010
Resolution of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case Nos. 27502 and 27503 are MODIFIED in that
petitioner Raymundo E. Zapanta is ACQUITTED of the crimes of Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act
No. 3019 and Infidelity in the Custody of Documents, defined and penalized under Article 226 of the
Revised Penal Code, on reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, let the bond of the petitioner posted for his provisional liberty be released to him.
The Hold Departure Order, dated June 18, 2002, issued by the Sandiganbayan against the petitioner, is
hereby lifted and set aside.
SO ORDERED. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Carpio, (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo, and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1
Penned by Associate Justice Ronald B. Jurado with Presiding Justice Ma. Cristina G.
Cortez-Estrada and Associate Justice Napoleon E. Inoturan, concurring; rollo, pp. 129-181.
2 Id. at 195-201.
3 Id. at 10.
4 Id. at 130.
5 Id. at 131.
6 TSN dated February 17, 2004, pp. 7-18.
7 TSN, dated February 18, 2004, pp. 1-18.
6/8
12/13/2017 G.R. Nos. 192698-99, April 22, 2015 - RAYMUNDO E. ZAPANTA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. : APRIL 2015 - …
8Rollo, pp. 212-213.

9 Id. at 216-217.

10 TSN, dated June 7, 2004, pp. 6-22.

11 TSN, dated October 5, 2004, pp. 8-58.

12 TSN, dated February 15, 2005, pp. 5-19.

13Rollo, p. 215.

14 TSN, dated July 17, 2006, pp. 7-39; TSN, dated July 18, 2006, pp. 13-20; and TSN,
dated July 19, 2006, pp. 17-35.

15 TSN, dated November 27, 2006, pp. 21-41; TSN, dated November 28, 2006, pp. 13-15.

16Rollo, p. 163.

17 Id. at 179-180.

18 Id. at 96-98.

19Jaca v. People, G.R. No. 166967, January 28, 2013, 689 SCRA 270, 294.

20Pareño v. Sandiganbayan, 326 Phil. 255, 279 (1996).

21 G.R. No. 192685, July 31, 2013, 703 SCRA 1.

22 Id. at 24.

23 249 Phil. 350(1988).

24 Id. at 357.

25 74 Phil. 45 (1942).

26Rollo, pp.178-179.

27 636 Phil. 535, 553-554 (2010).

28Quidet v. People, 632 Phil. 1, 12 (2010).

29Umipig v. People, G.R. No. 171359, July 18, 2012, 677 SCRA 53, 88.

30Li v. People, 471 Phil. 128, 148 (2004).

31 TSN, dated June 7, 2004, p. 38.

32 Id. at 39.

33 TSN, dated July 18, 2006, p. 14.

34Collantes v. Hon. Marcelo, 556 Phil. 794, 806 (2007).

35 Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, People v. Canlas, 423 Phil. 655, 677 (2001).

36People v. Flores, 389 Phil. 532, 541 (2000).

37Crisostomo v. Sandiganbayan, 495 Phil. 718, 744 (2005).

Back to Home | Back to Main

QUICK SEARCH

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908

1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015aprildecisions.php?id=350 7/8
12/13/2017 G.R. Nos. 192698-99, April 22, 2015 - RAYMUNDO E. ZAPANTA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. : APRIL 2015 - …
Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!

Copyright © 1998 - 2017 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015aprildecisions.php?id=350 8/8