I obtained last week a copy of the resolution of the Sandiganbayan clearing Gov. Gwendolyn Garcia of criminal liability in the P98.92 purchase of the so-called Balili property in Naga in 2008.
News reports on the dismissal merely said, quoting a paragraph in page 80 of the 81-page resolution of Garcia’s demurrer to the evidence (motion to dismiss in layman’s language), that “the prosecution failed to muster the required quantum of evidence.”
How did the Court arrive at the conclusion that there was no sufficient basis to sustain the indictments, leaving it with no choice but to dismiss the case? The resolution raised very interesting observations. While I am not using any quotation marks, much of the language used below are direct quotes from the resolution:
One. The prosecution failed to establish conspiracy among Garcia and all her co-accused to cause undue injury to the government. While evidence was overwhelming to prove the participation of each accused in the transaction, the Court is not convinced that the individual acts of the accused in performing their duties and functions was in furtherance of a complicity to enter into a transaction to the damage and prejudice of the Provincial Government.
Without definitive proof that there was a community of purpose and criminal design on the part of the accused, the Court finds discomfort in concluding that the accused were in cahoots with one another.
Two. The prosecution’s claim that the purchase was not a perceived expenditure under the Province’s 2008 budget does not hold water. While a hard look at Annual Investment Plan does not include a specific budget for the acquisition of properties, such activity may be subsumed in the other programs included in the investment plan.
Besides, while the investigation of the Commission on Audit does not prevent the Ombudsman from conducting its own inquiry, the fact that the COA did not disallow the transaction should be counted in favor of the accused as to the regularity of the purchase.
Three. Despite allegations by the prosecution that the properties were submerged in water, the original certificates of title did not indicate such fact through any annotation or memorandum of encumbrances. Moreover, no reversion proceedings were instituted by the government to recover the properties. Since buyers of registered lands are not required to inquire beyond the certificate of title, Garcia was justified in relying on the OCTs.
Also, the possibility cannot be discounted that the body of water within the Balili properties may have been due to the displacement of water caused by continuous reclamation projects and construction of dikes in adjacent properties.
In any case, the prosecution failed to prove that the Provincial Government can no longer utilize the Balili properties for the purposes for which they were purchased. In other words, the presence of water did not render the properties useless.
Because the prosecution failed to prove their case, it is no longer necessary to require Garcia and her co-accused to present evidence.