BY ATTY. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO
MANUEL S. SATUITO VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. NO. 239523-33, MEINRADO ENRIQUE BELLO VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. NO. 239542, G.R. NOS. 239554-61, MINIVILUZ S. CAMIŇA VS. PEOPLE, G.R. NOS. 239657-68 (MAY 19, 2025): NO SUCH THING AS CONSPIRACY BY INACTION AS A VALID DEFENSE OF OFFICIALS CHARGED OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (E) OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3019 (ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT)
This case is among the resultant cases of the anomaly which hounded the Armed Forces of the Philippines – Retirement and Separation Benefit System (AFP-RSBS). The anomaly was in the acquisition of lots to be developed by AFP-RSBS as residential subdivisions to be sold in public all over the country. These consolidated cases stemmed from the anomalous purchase of six (6) parcels of land by the AFP-RSBS in Iloilo City intended for now-defunct Presidio Royale Project (“Iloilo Project”), a development consistent of a golf course and residential and/or commercial lots in Iloilo City. The purchase involved two sets of deeds of absolute sale for the same properties. The first set was of unilateral deeds of sale displaying lower purchase prices, which were retained by the AFP-RSBS (unilateral deeds). The second set was of bilateral deeds of sale showing higher purchase prices that were held by the vendors or landowners (bilateral deeds). The unilateral deeds were used to compute the capital gains tax before the lands were registered in favor of AFP-RSBS. Hence, the allegation is the government was defrauded of the payment of correct taxes.
The Office of the Ombudsman found probable cause against petitioner Meinrado Enrique Bello (Bello), Chief of the Legal Department, petitioner Manuel S. Satuito (Satuito), Chief of the Documentation Division, the landowners, or vendors of parcels of land, and petitioner Miniviluz S. Camiňa (Camiňa), who represented Grand Manor, Inc. (Grand Manor), the accredited broker of the AFP-RSBS for the Presidio Royale Project, and her employee Joelita Trabuco (Trabuco).
In a Decision dated February 9, 2018, the Sandiganbayan found Bello, Satuito and Camiňa guilty of violation Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, for causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.” The Sandiganbayan held that they conspired to defraud the government by paying lesser capital gains taxes than what was due on the AFP-RSBS real estate transactions.
In a Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Supreme Court reversed and set aside the ruling of the Sandiganbayan insofar as it held guilty the petitioners of violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019. The Court cleared petitioners Bello and Satuito for Falsification by Public Officer by untruthful statements in a narration of facts under Article 171 (4) of the Revised Penal Code. The Court, however, found Camiňa guilty of Falsification of private documents in violation of Article 172 (1) in relation to Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.
On a very important note, the Supreme Court held that Sandiganbayan’s findings of conspiracy as tenuous. The Supreme Court found it alarming for Sandiganbayan deemed conspired or consented “through its inaction” just because it failed to prove petitioners’ overt acts and community of design. Citing the case of Rimando vs. People, G.R. No. 229701 (November 29, 2017), the Supreme Court held that conspiracy requires and defines “overt or external act” as some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried out to its complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense. The Supreme Court held that overt act may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime or through moral assistance to or ascendancy over the co-conspirators. The rationale for requiring an overt act is to confirm or clarify in unequivocal terms the intent to conspire and commit the crime. In this case, the Court found the absence of conspiracy among the petitioners:
“Here, besides not proving petitioners’ express agreement to commit the scheme, the prosecution also failed to prove their overt acts and community of purpose.
First, except for knowing each other as colleagues at AFP-RSBS, Satuito and Bello did not personally know or communicate with the other co-accused, especially Camiňa. They also did not directly deal with the sellers. Second, Satuito’s and Bello’s names or signatures did not appear on the documents formally offered by the prosecution and they were not tasked with the notarization of documents. Third, no prosecution witness testified against them, particularly on their supposed participation in the preparation, execution, and payment of the deeds of sale, or that they went to Iloilo for such purpose. Fourth, they had no further involvement after the execution of the bilateral deeds and were not aware of the unilateral deeds until during the Senate hearing.
In fact, the preparation, execution, notarization, and registration of the unilateral deeds are prone to several explanations. The more compelling explanation is that these activities were performed by the AFP-RSBS Real Estate Department, the team directly communicating with the sellers and the broker. An alternative explanation would be that Camiňa’s employees committed the forgery on the unilateral deeds and processed the registration of the sale on their own.
Given the foregoing gaps and equivocal nature of its conspiracy theory, the Sandiganbayan failed to prove the accused’s overt acts and community of design and, ultimately, the alleged conspiracy among them, whether express or implied.”
The Supreme Court also found the absence of all the elements of violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 and held that mere mistake or violation of some regulation resulting in gain to a person or damage to the government is not enough. To successfully prosecutor graft and corruption, corruption and personal gain must be proven to have been obtained through wrongful means. The Court held that no manifest partiality can be attributed to Bello and Satuito and no proof that they participated in the activities concerning the unilateral deeds or that they granted unwarranted benefits or advantage to the sellers or broker Camiňa:
“The Informations indicated that petitioners acted with manifest partiality and evident bad faith. However, the prosecution failed to prove that Bello or Satuito maliciously favored one person over another, or that they actively and fraudulently fabricated the unilateral deeds. The prosecution only presumed that their negligence or passivity contributed to the anomalous sale transactions.
To prove their innocence, Satuito and Bello countered that their signatures did not appear on any document. The contentious unilateral deeds were not submitted to them for review, nor were they informed of the existence of such documents. Satuito and Bello merely reviewed the bilateral deeds in the usual course of business, in their capacities as Documentation Division Chief and Legal Department Head, respectively.
Since the Real Estate Department was tasked to handle the negotiation and closing of the sales, Satuito and Bello did not have the chance to directly oversee the sale transactions. They also no longer had any opportunity to review the documents after these were signed by AFP-RSBS President Ramiscal. Hence, if the unilateral deeds were only prepared after the bilateral deeds were executed, Satuito and Bello could no longer have known about the two sets of documents or at least about the unilateral deeds.
Thus, no manifest partiality or evident bad faith can be attributed to them.
x x x x x x x x x
Here, the prosecution failed to prove that Bello and Satuito participated in the activities concerning the unilateral deeds or that they granted unwarranted benefits or advantage to the sellers or Camiňa. Similarly, the loss or detriment to the government from the undervalued unilateral deeds became moot when the deficiency taxes have been compromised and paid.”
Aside from finding Camiňa guilty of Falsification of private documents in violation of Article 172 (1) in relation to Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, the Supreme Court also found Bello and Satuito administratively liable for simple negligence and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service which merited their suspension from service for a period of one (1) year.