Facts:
Petitioners Arias and Data, together with other officials, were accused of violation of
sec. 3(e) of ra 3019 (anti-graft and corrupt practices act), for supposedly affecting
undue injury, damage and prejudice to the government of the republic of the
Philippines by causing, allowing and/or approving the illegal and irregular
disbursement and expenditure of public funds in favor and in the name of Benjamin
Agleham, in connection with the overpriced land purchase for the Mangahan flood
way project.
Nov 16, 1987- Sandiganbayan rendered a 78-page decision finding the accused guilty
beyond reasonable doubt. The penalties were imprisonment for 3-6 years, perpetual
disqualification from public office and payment of p1,425,300 to the government.
Arias filed a petition for review of the sandiganbayan's decision at the Supreme court
contending that the court's findings that he conspired with his co-accused and that he
was grossly negligent are based on misapprehension of facts, speculation, surmise,
and conjecture.
Data’s main defense is that the acquisition of the agleham property was the work of
his formed committee in which he did not take an active part, and that the price which
the government paid for it was reasonable.
Issue:
1. Won petitioners arias and data are guilty as co-conspirators in the conspiracy to
cause injury to the government through the irregular disbursement and expenditure of
public funds.
Held: No
1. Guilt must be premised on a more knowing, personal, and deliberate participation
of each individual who is charged with others as part of a conspiracy. Department
secretary, bureau chief, commission chairman, agency head, and all chief auditors
cannot be guilty of conspiracy simply because he/she was the last of a long line of
officials and employees who acted upon or affixed their signatures to a transaction.
There should be other grounds than the mere signature or approval appearing on a
voucher to sustain a conspiracy charge and conviction.
It would set a bad precedent if a department head or chief auditor is suddenly swept
into a conspiracy conviction simply because he did not personally examine every
single detail, or painstakingly trace every step from inception, or investigate the
motives of every person involved in a transaction before affixing his signature as the
final approving authority.
2. Arias principle: All heads of offices have to rely to a reasonable extent on their
subordinates and on the good faith of those who prepare bids, purchase supplies, or
enter into negotiations.
While it can be argued that arias should have probed records and documents, and
questioned persons; or that data should have inspected the documents accepted by his
committee, it is doubtful if any auditor or head of a fairly sized office could
personally do all these things in all vouchers presented for his signature. The court
would be asking for the impossible.
There are hundreds of document, letters and supporting paper that routinely pass
through the hands of an executive head even of a small government agencies or
commissions. Thus, there has to be some added reason why he/she should examine a
specific document in such detail.
3. Sandiganbayan’s decision to convict the petitioners of causing undue injury,
damage, and prejudice to the government because of gross overpricing is grounded on
shaky foundations.
While the court is not prepared to say whether p80.00-p500.00 per sqm of land in
pasig in 1978 would be a fair evaluation, since the value must be determined in an
eminent domain proceeding by a competent court, it is certain that it cannot be p5.00
per sqm.
The court held that the sandiganbayan erred in assuming that the P5.00 per sqm value
fixed by the assessor in the tax declarations was the correct market value of the
property. As the court has previously held in epza v dulay, factors other than the value
stated by the landowner in his tax declaration or fixed by the municipal assessor must
be considered in finding the true value of just compensation.
Dissenting opinion of Grino-Aquino:
Conspiracy of silence and inaction: The petitioners kept silent when they should
have asked questions; they looked the other way when they should have probed deep
into the transaction.
The petitioner's partiality for agleham/gutierrez may be inferred from their having
deliberately closed their eyes to the defects and irregularities of the transaction in his
favor and their seeming neglect, if not deliberate omission, to check, the authenticity
of the documents presented to them for approval.
Chiefs of offices who should be vigilant to protect the interest of the State should not
accept as gospel truth the certifications of their subordinates and approve without
question million-peso purchases which should have prompted them to make inquires
or verify the authenticity of the documents presented to them for approval.
Since partiality is a mental state or predilection, in the absence of direct evidence, it
may be proved by the attendant circumstance instances.
