Uriarte v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Joventino Correos declared a parcel of land under Tax Declaration (TD) No. 3352 in 1948. Over the years, subsequent tax declarations (TD No. 5249, TD No. 116, TD No. 121) showed alterations in the location and boundaries of this property. Similarly, a two-hectare lot declared by Antioco Uriarte (petitioner's father) under TD No. 4642 in 1954 underwent alterations in its boundaries and area in subsequent declarations (TD No. 1534, TD No. 243, TD No. 247). These alterations were allegedly made by petitioner Demie L. Uriarte when she was the Municipal Assessor and Deputy Provincial Assessor of Carrascal, Surigao del Sur. Evelyn Arpilleda, through counsel, informed petitioner of these alterations and requested rectification. Petitioner complied, restoring the original entries in ARP No. 96-08-00328. Arpilleda then filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman, alleging unlawful acts by petitioner in altering the tax declarations, which prejudiced her and became the basis for petitioner's alleged "forceful and unlawful possession" of the property. Procedural History: The Office of the Ombudsman filed an Information against petitioner for violation of Section 3(e), R.A. 3019. The RTC of Cantilan, Surigao del Sur, ordered petitioner's preventive suspension. Petitioner moved to quash the information, questioning the Ombudsman's authority to file it before the RTC, but the case was reinstated. After trial, the RTC convicted petitioner, sentencing him to imprisonment and perpetual disqualification from public office. Petitioner appealed to the Sandiganbayan, raising issues regarding the information's sufficiency and the evidence presented. The Sandiganbayan affirmed the conviction with modification, deleting the forfeiture of retirement benefits. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the Sandiganbayan's decision, arguing that he cannot be convicted under an information that charges an offense not proven to be a violation of law, and that he cannot be convicted based on conclusions of facts (land-grabbing, dispossession) not alleged in the information.
Issue(s)
Whether the Information sufficiently alleged the offense of violation of Section 3(e), R.A. 3019, and whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner committed a violation of Section 3(e), R.A. 3019. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused based on facts not alleged in the Information, specifically land-grabbing and dispossession. Whether the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties was overcome.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Decision of the Sandiganbayan dated March 21, 2005, is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of the Information and proof of violation of Section 3(e), R.A. 3019: The Court held that the Information sufficiently alleged all the elements of the offense. The accusatory portion clearly stated that petitioner, a public officer, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously caused the change of location and boundaries of properties belonging to Joventino Correos and his own father, Antioco Uriarte, taking advantage of his position, acting with evident bad faith and manifest partiality, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of Joventino Correos. This directly corresponds to the elements of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019: (1) the accused is a public officer discharging official functions; (2) he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence; and (3) his action caused undue injury to any party or gave unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference. The Court found that petitioner acted with evident bad faith by admitting to the alterations and attempting to justify them with a misinterpretation of the General Instructions. His failure to inform Joventino Correos or the private complainant of the changes further demonstrated bad faith. Even if not motivated by ill will, his actions constituted inexcusable negligence. The Court emphasized that the disjunctive "or" in the provision means that either causing undue injury or giving unwarranted benefits constitutes a violation. On conviction based on facts not alleged in the Information (land-grabbing and dispossession): The Court disagreed with the petitioner's contention that he was convicted of land-grabbing and dispossession, offenses not alleged in the Information. The Court clarified that petitioner was charged and convicted of violating Section 3(e), R.A. 3019. The Sandiganbayan correctly held that the RTC's finding of a "hidden intention on the part of the petitioner to grab and dispossess private complainant from their property" was merely descriptive of how petitioner acted with evident bad faith, which is an element of the crime charged. Therefore, this "hidden intention" did not need to be separately alleged in the Information. The Information only needs to allege the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and the reason therefor can be proven during trial. An allegation of evident bad faith is sufficient, and the court correctly found that the petitioner's intention to grab the land was a manifestation of such bad faith. On the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties: The Court found that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties was overcome by the evidence. Petitioner admitted to making the alterations on the tax declarations. The General Instructions Governing the Conduct and Procedures in the General Revision of Real Property Assessments, which petitioner relied upon, actually outlined limitations on the authority of municipal assessors. Specifically, paragraph 27 prohibits the transfer or change of ownership of real property by assessors during a general revision. Petitioner's unilateral act of altering the entries, without notifying the property owner, and his subsequent attempt to justify these alterations, demonstrated that he did not regularly perform his duties. The restoration of the original entries did not extinguish his criminal liability, as it is not a ground for extinguishing criminal liability under the Revised Penal Code.
Main Doctrine
A public officer commits a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 if, in the discharge of their official functions, they act with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence, causing undue injury to any party or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference. The alteration of tax declarations by a Municipal Assessor, which prejudices the property rights of another and benefits oneself or one's family, constitutes such a violation, even if the original entries are later restored.