G.R. Nos. 172476-99 - BRIG. GEN. (RET.) JOSE RAMISCAL, JR., VS. SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Office finds and so holds that the following crimes were committed and that respondents, whose names appear below, are probably guilty thereof: x x x x 4. JOSE RAMISCAL, JR., WILFREDO PABALAN, NILO FLAVIANO, conspirators for twelve (12) counts of falsification of public documents relative to the twelve (12) unilateral Deeds of Sale; x x x x 6. JOSE RAMISCAL, JR. WILFREDO PABALAN, and NILO FLAVIANO twelve (12) counts of violation of section 3(e) of RA 3019 for short-changing the government in the correct amount of taxes due for the sale of Lot X to AFP-RSBS; [9] On 28 January 1999, the Ombudsman filed in the Sandiganbayan 12 informations [10] for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 and 12 informations [11] for falsification of public documents against petitioner and several other co-accused. Petitioner filed his first motion for reconsideration dated 12 February 1999, [12] with a supplemental motion dated 28 May 1999, [13] of the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause against him. In its 11 June 1999 Order, [14] the Sandiganbayan disposed of petitioner's first motion for reconsideration, thus: WHEREFORE, the prosecution is given 60 days from today within which to evaluate its evidence and to do whatever is appropriate on the Motion for Reconsideration dated February 12, 1999 and supplemental motion thereof dated May 28, 1999 of accused Jose Ramiscal and to inform this Court within the said period as to its findings and recommendations together with the action thereon of the Ombudsman. In a memorandum dated 22 November 2001, the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OMB-OSP) recommended that petitioner be excluded from the informations. On review, the Office of Legal Affairs (OMB-OLA), in a memorandum dated 18 December 2001, recommended the contrary, stressing that petitioner participated in and affixed his signature on the contracts to sell, bilateral deeds of sale, and various agreements, vouchers, and checks for the purchase of the subject property. [15] The memoranda of OMB-OSP and OMB-OLA were forwarded for comment to the Office of the Ombudsman for Military (OMB-Military). In a memorandum dated 21 August 2002, the OMB-Military adopted the memorandum of OMB-OSP recommending the dropping of petitioner's name from the informations. Acting Ombudsman Margarito Gervacio approved the recommendation of the OMB-Military. However, the recommendation of the OMB-Military was not manifested before the Sandiganbayan as a final disposition of petitioner's first motion for reconsideration. A panel of prosecutors [16] was tasked to review the records of the case. After thorough review, the panel of prosecutors found that petitioner indeed participated in and affixed his signature on the contracts to sell, bilateral deeds of sale, and various agreements, vouchers, and checks for the purchase of the property at the price of P10,500.00 per square meter. The panel of prosecutors posited that petitioner could not feign ignorance of