Brig. Gen. (Ret.) Jose S. Ramiscal, Jr. vs.

Sandiganbayan (4th Division) and People of the

Philippines, G.R. Nos. 169727-28, August 18, 2006, Per J. Callejo, sr., J. (First Division)

FACTS: In 1998, Senate Committees on Accountability of Public O cers and Investigation

(Blue Ribbon) and on National Defense and Security (collectively, Senate Blue Ribbon
Committee) conducted an extensive joint inquiry into the alleged anomalies in the Armed
Forces of the Philippines-Philippine Retirement Bene ts Systems (AFP-RSBS). In its report, the
Senate Blue Ribbon Committee showed the anomalies in the acquisition of lots in Tanauan,
Batangas, Calamba, Lahuna and Ilo-ilo City by the AFP-RSBS in which it stated the modus
operandi of the perpetrators in buying of lots was to cover the same transactions with two
deeds of sale. The unilateral deed signed only by the sellers which were the ones registered
with the register of deeds mismatch with the bilateral deeds signed by the seller and the buyer,
AFP-RSBS. The Unilateral deeds recorded lower consideration paid by the System to the
buyer(s) than those stated in the Bilateral Deeds. The discrepancies between the purchase
price booked by RSBS and the purchase price re ected in the unilateral deed of sale actually
registered in the relevant Registry of Deeds, totaled about seven hundred three million pesos
(P703 Million).

Pursuant to the recommendation of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee to "prosecute and/or
cause the prosecution of Gen. Jose Ramiscal Jr. (Ret), past AFP-RSBS President, who had
signed the unregistered deeds of sale covering the acquisition of certain parcels of land,"
Ombudsman Investigators Ricardo Sullano, Rodil Buenaventura and Anatolio Alejandrino of the
O ce of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military conducted a fact- nding investigation. They
executed a Joint A davit-Complaint, stating that based on their ndings, the following may be
charged with falsi cation of public documents and violation of Section 3(e) and (g) of Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 3019: petitioner B/Gen. Jose Ramiscal, Jr., former AFP-RSBS president; Atty.
Meinrado Enrique Bello, Head of the AFP-RSBS Legal Department in charge of Land
Acquisition; Capt. Perfecto Enrique Quilicot, AFP-RSBS Project O cer, Tanauan, Batangas,
Land Acquisition; and Notaries Public Alfredo Nasser and Manuel Satuito.

Further investigation was conducted by a panel oof Ombudman Investigators which issued a
Joint resolution nding nding probable cause to le the corresponding Informations for 148
counts of violation of Article 315, in relation to Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal
Code, and Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 against Meinrado Bello and Atty. Manuel Satuito.
However, it recommended that the complaint against petitioner be dismissed citing ruling in
Arias v. Sandiganbayan.

Ombudsman did not act on the recommendation and another panel of prosecutors
condducted review on Joint resoluttion and conducted a thorough investigation. After
conducting clari catory hearings, the investigating panel issued a Memorandum dated June
15, 2004, recommending to the Ombudsman that petitioner be charged with 148 counts of
estafa through falsi cation of public documents, and one count violation of Section 3(e) of R.A.
No. 3019. Petitioner’s allegation that he merely relied on the legal sta of the AFP-RSBS when
he signed the unregistered bilateral deeds of sale was considered untenable. The panel
declared that the deeds were used purposely to facilitate the payment of amounts in excess of
that paid to the landowners.

The panel further found that the culpability of petitioner, Quilicot, Bello and Satuito is evidenced
by the fact that they signed documents in manifest bad faith, with full knowledge of the
anomalous transactions. The bilateral deeds of absolute sale were prepared by the Legal
Department of AFP-RSBS where Bello and Satuito were assigned, later enabling them to
amass enormous pro ts

ffi
fi
fi
fi
ffi
fi
fi
fi
fl
fi
fi
fi
ffi
fi
ff
ffi
 The ombudsman approed the recommendation of the panel. However, the petitioner and his
co-accused led their respective motions for reconsideration which were denied. After series of
meetings by the panel of prosecutors and special prosecuutors with the ombudsman, it was
agreed that only ve Informations for estafa through falsi cation of public documents and ve
Informations for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 would be initially led with the
Sandiganbayan.

Of the Informations led, two were ra ed to the Fourth Division of the Sandiganbayan, one of
which was docketed as Criminal Case No. 28022 for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019
and for estafa thru falsi cation of public documents, was docketed as Criminal Case No.
28023.

Subsequently, petitioner led in the Fourth Division of the anti-graft court (in Criminal Case
Nos. 28022 and 28023) an "Urgent Motion for Hearing to Determine Probable Cause and
Consolidate All Cases in One Information with Prayer to Defer Issuance of An Arrest Warrant
Pending Resolution Hereof which was also denied.

After petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, he led for motion to quash in criminal
cases nos. 28022 and 28023 on grounds that the court has no jurisdiction over thee o enses
charged; In Criminal Case No. 28023 (estafa through falsi cation), the facts charged being an
essential part of the continuing crime of Estafa separately charged in Criminal Cases Nos.
28021, 28025, 28027 and 28029, pending in the 3rd, 1st, 5th and 2nd divisions, respectively,
only one Information must be led for all these cases; In Criminal Case No. 20822 (violation of
RA No. 3019), the said case is abated by Criminal Case No. 20823 (Estafa through falsi cation)
for having same facts alleged in both cases.

Sandiganbayan denied motion holding that it had jurisdiction over the crimes charged.

On October 7, 2005, petitioner led instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

Petitioner avers that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the crimes charged as
provided in Section 4 of R.A. 8249. He insists that the AFP-RSBS is not a government-owned
or controlled corporation and that he does not fall under Salary Grade 27 as required in Section
4 of the law, inasmuch as his position as AFP-RSBS President is not even included under the
Compensation and Classi cation Act of 1989. Petitioner cites the ruling of this Court in Inding
v. Sandiganbayan to support his claim.

ISSUE: Whether Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack and/
or excess of jurisdiction in not quashing the informations and in not dismissing the cases
notwithstanding that it had no jurisdiction over the o ense charged in the information

RULING: Petition has no merit.

Court held that petitioner failed to establish his claim that the Sandiganbayan committed a
grave abuse of authority in denying his motion to quash the Information. The anti-graft court
correctly ruled that it has jurisdiction over the crimes charged. It cited that in People v.
Sandiganbayan and Ramiscal, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, the court ruled that the AFP-RSBS is a
government-owned and controlled corporation, and that its funds are in the nature of public
funds. Under Section 4(a)(1)(g) of R.A. No. 8249, the Sandiganbayan has exclusive jurisdiction
over o enses committed by presidents, directors, trustees or managers of government owned
or controlled corporations. 42 Under Section 4(b) of R.A. No. 8249, the Sandiganbayan has
exclusive jurisdiction over o enses committed by public o cers and employees in relation to
their o ce, whether simple or complexed with other crimes. 43

As gleaned from the material averments of the Information in Criminal Case No. 28023, the
charge against petitioner is estafa through falsi cation of public document in the performance
of his duties and in relation to his position as president of the AFP-RSBS.
ffi
ff
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
ff
fi
fi
ffl
fi
ff
fi
fi
ffi
fi
fi
fi
ff
fi