ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 149184.September 24, 2001]

CONCILLO vs. REP. OF THE PHILIPPINES

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 24 2001.

G.R. No. 149184 (Francisco Concillo vs. Republic of the Philippines.)

Before the Court is a Petition under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court which seeks to nullify the decision of the 2nd Division of the Sandiganbayan in Civil Case No. 0171 insofar as it ordered the forfeiture of petitioner Francisco Concillo's property in favor of the State. Petitioner Concillo was a former public officer having served as Regional Director of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) in the following regions, and during the following time periods: (1) Region VII, from 1983 up to March 1990; (2) Region X, from 1990 to 1993; and (3) Region XI, from 1993 up to his retirement from the government service in 1994. The forfeiture was made by reason of petitioner's alleged unexplained and/or ill-gotten wealth pursuant to the provisions of R.A. 1379 (An Act Declaring Forfeiture In Favor of the State Any Property Found to Have Been Unlawfully Acquired By Any Public Officer or Employee and Providing For the Procedure Thereof). In particular, the property forfeited was a parcel of land covered by TCT No 51390 located in Carmen, Cagayan de Oro City.

A verified petition for Forfeiture for violation of Section 2 of R.A. 1379 ¹ This law was approved on June 18, 1955. was filed by the Republic of the Philippines through Special Prosecution Officer III Orlando I. Ines of the Office of the Ombudsman, with the Sandiganbayan on July 24, 1996. Petitioner was alleged to have acquired during his incumbency as Regional Director of DECS, property and assets that were manifestly out of proportion to his salary, his lawful income, the income derived from other acquired property, as well as the income of his wife. Petitioner filed his Answer on May 14, 1997, and on August 18-19, 1997 a pre-trial conference took place wherein he waived the presentation of testimonial evidence, .resting his case with the admission of Exhibits "A" to "N" inclusive, with sub-markings. Subsequently, petitioner submitted additional exhibits and also presented his witnesses. After petitioner manifested that he would not present any rebuttal evidence, both parties were given thirty (30) days from receipt of the Resolution of this Court on the admission of exhibits within which to file their respective memoranda. Thereafter, the case was deemed submitted for decision. Respondent filed his Memorandum on July 13, 2000 while the petitioner did not file any. ² Rollo, pp. 35-41.

After a very thorough scrutiny of every piece of evidence presented by both parties, the Sandiganbayan ruled in favor of the respondent in a decision dated May 24, 2001. In the dispositive portion thereof, the Sandiganbayan ordered the parcel of land located in Carmen, Cagayan de Oro City covered by TCT No. 51390, forfeited in favor of the State. ³ Id, at 59.

In arriving at their decision, the Sandiganbayan delved into issues of fact, adding up all the sources of additional income that were not declared in the petitioner's "Statement of Assets and Liability" but which were presented in evidence by him. These figures were thereafter compared with the acquisition costs of all the property that the petitioner acquired during his incumbency. The Sandiganbayan then concluded: "If we will take into consideration the family's expenses or it will be deducted therefrom, it would appear that their total money/deposits merely got even with the properties they acquired." ⁴ Id, at 58. Given that the expenses merely tallied with their income therefore, the question that remained unanswered to the Sandiganbayan was, "xxx where in heavens name did they get PhP 851,100.00 which was paid in cash for a parcel of land located in Carmen, Cagayan de Oro... acquired on November 20, 1989?" The petitioner's explanations that he had obtained several loan from friends and colleagues were not given credence, given that the alleged loans were not substantiated with any piece of written evidence or document.

The Sandiganbayan held:

It is worthy to note the absence or lack of receipt evidencing said loans. He never presented any document to the effect that he had a loan from anybody. It is contrary to the ordinary course of nature and human experience for a creditor not to reduce in writing a loan contract or agreement considering the amount involved. Additionally, it is highly inconceivable for a person to depart from his possession huge amount of money without any receipt, at least, a private document to that effect. ⁵ Id, at 56-57.

The Sandiganbayan therefore held that absent any clear and satisfactory explanation that the Carmen, Cagayan de Oro property came from legitimate sources of funds, the prima facie presumption contemplated under Section 2, R.A. No. 1379, still holds, to wit:

SEC. 2. Filing of Petition .-Whenever any public officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency an amount of property which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property, said property shall be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired. xxx

We agree with the Sandiganbayan.

The general rule is that factual findings of lower courts are accorded great weight and respect by the Supreme Court on review of their decisions. ⁶ Lim vs. CA 229 SCRA 616 (1994).Findings of fact of lower courts shall therefore not be disturbed on appeal unless the lower court has overlooked, ignored, or disregarded some fact or circumstance of sufficient weight or significance which, if considered, would alter the situation. Furthermore, appeals from decisions, resolutions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases may merely raise questions of law. ⁷ Yabut vs. Office of the Ombudsman, 233 SCRA 310 (1994) ^.

Given that the petition merely raises issues of fact, this Court sees no cogent reason to reverse the decision of the Sandiganbayan. This petition is hereby DENIED not only for failure to show the lack of any reversible error in the challenged decision pursuant to Rule 45, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Court. The petition is also denied on procedural grounds, in particular the failure to provide an explanation on why the service of the petition was not done personally, ⁸ As required by Rule 13 Section 11, in relation to Rule 45, Section 3 and Rule 56, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Court.and also the lack of proof of service of the petition on the lower court concerned and on the adverse party, ⁹ As required by Rule 56, Section 5 (e) and Rule 13, Section 13.i.e., as evidenced by Registry receipts.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE