Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 199430 (Meinrado Enrique A. Bello v. People of the Philippines). � Before us is a Rule 45 Petition filed by petitioner assailing the 14 June 2011 Decision and 18 November 2011 Resolution of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 28022.

The Sandiganbayan Ruling 

In its 14 June 2011 Decision,^[1] the Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner of violation of R.A. 3019, Sec. 3(e) for acting in evident bad faith in the purchase of the property sold by Glicerio Plaza as part of the Armed Forces of the Philippines � Retirement Separation and Benefit System (AFP-RSBS) Calamba Land Banking Project, The Sandiganbayan found that the true consideration of the sale made by Plaza to AFP-RSBS was only P227,460^[2]  as stated in a unilateral Deed of Absolute Sale dated 14 April 1997, and not the disbursed amount of P1,531,564 as reflected in the 23 April 1997 bilateral Deed of Sale.

Despite the validity of the earlier unilateral Deed of Absolute Sale, petitioner, along with other AFP-RSBS officers, made it appear that the property was sold for P1,531,564. To perpetuate the act, petitioner signed the Status Transaction Report, which recommended the release of funds.

Our Ruling

We deny the Petition.

We find no cogent reason to reverse or modify the Sandiganbayan's ruling on the basis of petitioner's claims^[3] that (1) the true consideration was P1,531,564 and that (2) he was not in evident bad faith when he signed the Report.

At the outset, it must be emphasized that the Sandiganbayan's finding of fact that the true consideration was only P227,460 is a factual issue generally beyond this Court's jurisdiction.^[4]

In any event, the finding that the true consideration was only P227,460 and not P1,531,564 is supported by the evidence on record. Here, the Sandiganbayan found that the unilateral Deed of Sale was the official document used by the buyer AFP-RSBS and seller Plaza in the registration of the sale; as well as in the payment of the registration fee, transfer tax, capital gains tax, and documentary stamp tax necessary to effect transfer. ^[5] This finding was not disputed by the petitioner.

At most, petitioner relied on the testimony of Plaza, which referred to a consideration of P1,137,300 to P1,213,120 as purchase price of the property.^[6] However, based on the parol evidence rule, there can generally be no evidence of the terms other than the contents of the written agreement;^[7]  and even if this were the case; it still appears that the consideration cannot be the P1,531,564 disbursed according to the Status Transaction Report signed by petitioner.

Neither did the seller or the buyer dispute the validity of the unilateral Deed of Absolute Sale. The subsequent bilateral Deed of Absolute Sale did not repeal or modify the earlier sale either. As the deed was a valid agreement of conveyance, notwithstanding that only the seller signed the deed,^[8] the Sandiganbayan did not err when it used the unilateral Deed of Sale as basis to determine the true consideration. Consequently, the Sandiganbayan concluded that petitioner had entered into a contract grossly disadvantageous to the government.

As for the existence of evident bad faith, we likewise agree with the Sandiganbayan's finding. A month after executing the sale, petitioner had already been informed during the 27 July 1997 Board Meeting of the irregularity of using two Deeds of Sale to reflect two different prices.^[9] The Board then directed the rectification of the documents.^[10] Nevertheless, in dereliction of his duty, petitioner did not recall the Report and other documents related to the transaction.

In Dugayon v. People,^[11] this Court held that the chairperson's act of accepting secondhand typewriters, contrary to the requirement to buy brand-new units, and allowing payment for them at the price of brand-new units constitutes an act of evident bad faith. Similarly, in the signing of the Status Transaction Report to disburse a bloated purchase price, bad faith is indeed evident.cralaw

WHEREFORE, the 14 June 2011 Decision and 18 November 2011 Resolution of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 28022 are hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

Very truly yours, 

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Sandiganbayan Decision, penned by Associate Justice Jose R. Hernandez, with Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong and Maria Cristina J. Cornejo concurring.

^[2] Sandiganbayan Decision, p. 18; rollo, p. 65. 

^[3] Petitioner's Petition for Review, p. 19, rollo, p. 26. 

^[4] Suller v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 153686, 22 July 2003, 407 SCRA 201. 

^[5] Sandiganbayan Decision, supra note 2. 

^[6] Petitioner's Petition for Review, supra note 3, p. 22; rollo, p. 29. 

^[7] RULES OF COURT, Rule 130, Sec. 9. 

^[8] Dilag v. Legal Heirs of Resurreccion, 76 Phil. 650, 659 (1946). 

^[9] Sandiganbayan Decision, supra note 2, p. 23; rollo, p. 30. 

^[10] Sandiganbayan Decision, supra note 2, p. 24; rollo, p. 31. 

^[11] G.R. No. 147333, 12 August 2004, 436 SCRA 262.