Ramiscal vs Sandiganbayan
G.R. Nos. 140576-99, December 13, 2004

Facts:

The Armed Forces of the Philippines Retirement and Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS) is a government-owned or controlled corporation, designed to establish a separate fund to guarantee continuous financial support to the AFP military retirement system. In 1999, the Special Prosecutor filed 12 separate Informations for violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019 and 12 separate Informations for falsification of public documents against Ramiscal, the president of AFP-RSBS, and several other persons. Pending resolution of Ramiscal's motion to dismiss and other motions, the law firm of Albano & Associates filed a "Notice of Appearance" as private prosecutors in all the cases for the Association of Generals and Flag Officers, Inc. (AGFOI). The notice of appearance was made conformably to the letter-request of Retired Commodore Ismael Aparri and Retired Brig. Gen. Pedro Navarro, who are members thereof.

Ramiscal opposed the appearance of the law firm of Albano & Associates as private prosecutors, contending that the charges brought against him were purely public crimes which did not involve damage or injury to any private party; thus, no civil liability had arisen. He argued that under Section 16 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, "an offended party may be allowed to intervene through a special prosecutor only in those cases where there is civil liability arising from the criminal offense charged." 

In its comment, the law firm contended that its clients, Commodore Aparri and Brig. Gen. Navarro, were members of the AGFOI and contributors of AFP-RSBS. It alleged that as such members-contributors, they "have been disadvantaged or deprived of their lawful investments and residual interest at the AFP-RSBS" through the criminal acts of the petitioner and his cohorts. It posited that its clients, not having waived the civil aspect of the cases involved, have all the right to intervene pursuant to Section 16, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. Moreover, the law firm averred that its appearance was in collaboration with the Office of the Ombudsman, and that their intervention in any event, was subject to the direction and control of the Office of the Special Prosecutor.

The Sandiganbayan denied Ramiscal's plea for the denial of the appearance of the law firm. 


Issue: 

Whether or not AGFOI as represented by albano & associates are private injured parties entitled to intervene as the private prosecutor in the subject cases.


Held:

AGFOI, and even Commodore Aparri and Brig. Gen. Navarro, are not the offended parties envisaged in Section 16, Rule 110, in relation to Section 1, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

[E]ven if the members of AGFOI may also be members or beneficiaries of the AFP-RSBS, the respondent AGFOI does not have a legal right to intervene in the criminal cases merely and solely to enforce and/or protect the constitutional right of such members to have access to the records of AFP-RSBS. Neither are such members entitled to intervene therein simply because the funds of the AFP-RSBS are public or government funds. It must be stressed that any interest of the members of the AFP-RSBS over its funds or property is merely inchoate and incidental. Such funds belong to the AFP-RSBS which has a juridical personality separate and independent of its members/beneficiaries.

As gleaned from the Informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 25122 to 25133 for violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019, the offended party is the government, which was allegedly deprived by the petitioner and the other accused of the capital gains and documentary stamp taxes, based on the actual and correct purchase price of the property stated therein in favor of the AFP-RSBS. The AGFOI was not involved whatsoever in the sales subject of the crimes charged; neither was it prejudiced by the said transactions, nor is it entitled to the civil liability of the petitioner for said cases. Thus, it is not the offended party in the said cases.

We agree with the petitioner that the AGFOI is not even the offended party in Criminal Cases Nos. 25134 to 25145 for falsification of public documents under paragraph 4, Sec. 1, Article 171, of the Revised Penal Code. It bears stressing that in the felony of falsification of public document, the existence of any prejudice caused to third person or the intent to cause damage, at the very least, becomes immaterial. The controlling consideration is the public character of a document and the violation of the public faith and the destruction of truth therein solemnly proclaimed. The offender does not, in any way, have civil liability to a third person.

However, if, in a deed of sale, the real property covered thereby is underpriced by a public officer and his co-conspirators to conceal the correct amount of capital gains and documentary stamp taxes due on the sale causing undue injury to the government, the offenders thereby commit two crimes – (a) falsification of public document defined in paragraph 4, Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code; and (b) violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019, a special penal law. The offender incurs civil liability to the government as the offended party for violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019, but not for falsification of public document under paragraph 4, Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.

On the other hand, if, under the deed of sale, the AFP-RSBS was made liable for the payment of the capital gains and documentary stamp taxes and, thereafter, gave the correct amount thereof to the petitioner to be paid to the government, and the petitioner and his co-accused pocketed the difference between the correct amount of taxes and the amount entrusted for payment, then the AFP-RSBS may be considered the offended party entitled to intervene in the above criminal cases, through the Government Corporate Counsel.

In fine, the AGFOI is not the offended party entitled to intervene in said cases.