Jose G. Solis, Petitioner, vs. Sandiganbayan and The People of The Philippines, Respondents

JOSE G. SOLIS, PETITIONER, VS.
SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

RESPONDENTS.
DOCTRINE:
Co-conspirators are liable collectively and equally for the common design of their criminal acts. When a
contract that is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government is entered into, the persons involved
—whether public officers or private persons—may be charged for violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act and suffer the same penalty if found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
FACTS:
In 1976, Garcia-Diaz's predecessor-in-interest, Flora L. Garcia (Garcia), filed an application for registration of a
16,589.84-hectare property located in Laur and Palayan City, Nueva Ecija before the Court of First Instance of
Nueva Ecija. Garcia based her application on the supposed title of her predecessor, Melecio Padilla (Padilla), as
evidenced by Possessory Information Title No. 216 issued during the Spanish regime. The property was
surveyed and its technical description provided in Bureau of Lands (BL) Plan II-6752. Garcia further alleged
that she had been in possession of the property for 26 years, as of the filing of her application, in addition to the
possession and enjoyment of her predecessors, which had lasted for more than 80 years.
The Republic of the Philippines (the Republic) opposed Garcia's application mainly on the ground that the
property sought to be registered formed part of Fort Magsaysay per Presidential Proclamation No. 237 dated
December 19, 1955. The property, the Republic claimed, formed part of the public domain and was inalienable.
Despite the Republic's opposition, the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija granted Garcia's application for
registration. This led to the Republic's filing of an appeal before the Court of Appeals, which was docketed as
CA-G.R. CV No. 22217. During the pendency of the appeal, Garcia died. She was substituted by her heirs,
among them being Garcia-Diaz. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance and
dismissed Garcia's application for registration. Garcia-Diaz's co-heirs then filed a motion for reconsideration,
which was likewise denied by the Court of Appeals.
As for Garcia-Diaz, she did not join her co-heirs in appealing before this Court. she chose to amicably settle
with the Republic. Garcia-Diaz submitted a draft Compromise Agreement dated May 16, 1997 to then Solicitor
General Silvestre H. Bello III (Solicitor General Bello).
Salvador V. Bonnevie (Bonnevie), Executive Assistant to then NAMRIA Administrator Solis, chaired the
meeting with Virgilio I. Fabian, Jr. (Fabian), Assistant Director of NAMRIA's Remote Sensing and Resource
Data Analysis Department, serving as co-chair.
Solis then wrote Solicitor General Ricardo P. Galvez (Solicitor General Galvez), who by then had replaced
Solicitor General Bello. In his February 12, 1998 Letter, Solis essentially stated that the actual ground location
of Fort Magsaysay did not match with the technical description as provided in Presidential Proclamation No.
237.
Thus, Solis recommended in those two (2) drafts that Presidential Proclamation No. 237 be amended and that
the plotting of the military reservation with comer points 6 and 7 be completed and finalized.
Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources Antonio Cerilles directed the new NAMRIA Administrator,
Isidro S. Fajardo, to form a team to investigate the alleged anomaly involving the Compromise Agreement. The
Investigating Committee then submitted a Memorandum to the Administrator dated April 12, 2000, where they
declared inaccurate the statement of then Administrator Solis in his February 12, 1998 Letter that a portion of
the property described in BL Plan II-6752 was outside the technical description of Fort Magsaysay as provided
in Presidential
Proclamation No. 237. The Investigating Committee based its findings, among others, on Map SP 203, a
plotting of technical description provided in Presidential Proclamation No. 237, which showed that the entire
property described in BL Plan II- 6752 was within the actual ground location of Fort Magsaysay. Public officers
Solicitor General Galvez, NAMRIA officials Solis, Fabian, Bonnevie, Valencia, and Viernes, and private
person Garcia-Diaz were charged for violating Section 3(g)of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act before
the Sandiganbayan.
The Sandiganbayan found Garcia-Diaz and Solis guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(g) of
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. According to the Sandiganbayan, the prosecution established the
following elements of the crime: first, that the accused is a public officer; second, that he or she entered into a
contract or transaction on behalf of the government; and, third, that such contract or transaction is grossly and
manifestly disadvantageous to the government.
Garcia-Diaz and Solis filed their respective Motions for Reconsideration. Garcia- Diaz reiterated her argument
that she could not be convicted under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act because she was a private
person.
Solis maintained that the prosecution failed to prove his part in the conspiracy to execute the Compromise
Agreement. First, he was not a party to it. Second, he had never met Solicitor General Galvez, the solicitor
general who entered into the Compromise Agreement. He only dealt with Solicitor General Bello, who
requested for his opinion. Lastly, there was nothing on record to prove that he knew Garcia-Diaz so as to
establish conspiracy.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Garcia-Diaz can be convicted despite being a private person?

2. Whether or not there is conspiracy between Garcia-Diaz and Solis to commit the crime Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act?
RULING:
1. Yes. It reiterated that a private person may be convicted under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act if he
or she is found to have committed the crime in conspiracy with a public official. It added that Garcia-Diaz could
not claim that the Republic's ownership of Fort Magsaysay was not yet final given that this Court had already
ruled as early as 1975 in Director of Lands v. Reyes that Padilla, Garcia-Diaz's alleged predecessor, had no title
to the property covered by BL Plan II- 6752 despite the existence of Possessory Information Title No. 216. It
was never proven that then Court of Appeals Justice Mendoza was the solicitor general before the land
registration court that initially granted Garcia's application for registration.
2. Yes, The Sandiganbayan held that there can be conspiracy even if all the conspirators do not know each other
personally. What is important is that the conspirator knowingly contributed to the criminal design. According to
the Sandiganbayan, the most indispensable part of the conspiracy was the February 12, 1998 Letter issued by
Solis to then Solicitor General Galvez as this served as the technical basis to conclude that 4,689 hectares of the
property described in BL Plan II-6752 were outside the reservation described in Presidential Proclamation No.
237, and hence, alienable and disposable.
All that is required is unity of purpose for there to be conspiracy. Here, the purpose is to "give the proposed
compromise settlement a semblance of propriety and legitimacy."
In sum, the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of petitioners Garcia-Diaz and Solis.
They conspired to make it appear that a 4,689-hectare portion of the property described in BL Plan II-6752 is
outside the reservation described in Presidential Proclamation No. 237. Garcia-Diaz cannot claim good faith
because as early as 1975, this Court held in Director of Lands v. Reyes that the source of her supposed
ownership—Possessory Information Title No. 216—does not exist.

Jose G. Solis, Petitioner, vs. Sandiganbayan and The People of The Philippines, Respondents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jose G. Solis, Petitioner, vs. Sandiganbayan and The People of The Philippines, Respondents

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jose G. Solis, Petitioner, vs. Sandiganbayan and The People of The Philippines, Respondents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOSE G. SOLIS, PETITIONER, VS.

SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

1. Whether or not Garcia-Diaz can be convicted despite being a private person?

You might also like