A FORMER chief of the Cabanatuan City Registry of Deeds won his appeal at the Sandiganbayan, persuading the court to reverse a June 5, 2023 decision of the Cabanatuan City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 29 that convicted him on seven counts of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
In a 25-page ruling issued on Oct. 15, 2024, the First Division of the Sandiganbayan overturned the RTC decision and acquitted Fidel Ortaleza of all charges on the ground that the prosecution’s evidence did not overcome the requirement for proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The ruling likewise set aside the penalty of six to seven years imprisonment for each count, or a total of 42 to 49 years, with perpetual disqualification from public office.
Associate Justice Bayani H. Jacinto penned the decision with Associate Justices Maria Theresa V. Mendoza Arcega and Juliet M. Manalo-San Gaspar concurring.
Ortaleza was accused of causing injury to complainant spouses Marvin Carlos and Virginia Paez for allowing the entry into the record of Deeds of Absolute Sale pertaining to their properties even if the application did not comply with documentary requirements.
This led to the cancellation of their land titles, paving the way for their disposal without the owners’ knowledge.
The property sale happened because of a general power of attorney executed by the complainants in favor of one Tereso Paez. Because the deeds were entered into the records of the Register of Deeds, new titles were issued in the names of spouses Ros Gideon and Rebecca Paez.
Prosecutors said Ortaleza’s approval of the entries was illegal because what the rules require was a special power of attorney specifying the scope of authority of the holder as opposed to a general power of attorney which does not cede such rights.
In convicting Ortaleza, the Cabanatuan City RTC held that there was insufficient evidence to prove evident bad faith in the actions of the accused but found him liable for gross inexcusable negligence.
The Sandiganbayan disagreed.
“The mere fact that the registration of the deeds of sale involved in these cases are contrary to the provisions of the Civil Code cannot be the sole basis of a prosecution under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,” the anti-graft court declared.
It pointed out that the civil aspect of the graft cases has been settled through a compromise agreement between the property owners and the transferees of the titles.
However, it pointed out that the element of gross inexcusable negligence has not been established with sufficient evidence.
“The Court cannot simply conclude that accused-appellant’s act of registering the deeds of sale, by itself, can be characterized as gross inexcusable negligence because the circumstances surrounding his actions, from which the Court may deduce how he performed the act complained of, have not been shown,” the Sandiganbayan noted.
It stressed that mistakes committed by public officials “no matter how patently clear, are not actionable, absent any clear showing that they were motivated by malice or gross negligence amounting to bad faith.”
“While the accused-appellant was remiss in the performance of his duties, the prosecution was unable to submit any evidence to lend even the slightest context of corrupt intent on his part. Coupled with the lack of evidence of actual damage or injury suffered by private complainants, the Court finds that he is entitled to an acquittal on the ground of reasonable doubt,” the Sandiganbayan said.
