G.R. No. L-64750 - Manzanaris vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-64750)

Petitioner, Respondent, Key Dates, and Applicable Law

Petitioner delivered an owner’s copy of OCT No. 877 to accused Borja for the purpose of administrative reconstitution when the original could not be found at the Register of Deeds. Mrs. Trinidad M. Borja later reconstituted the title (November 1974) but the reconstituted document was not returned to the court. In 1981 a motion to borrow OCT No. 877 led to discovery of the title’s reconstitution and petitioner’s prior delivery. The Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner under Article 226, paragraph 2, Revised Penal Code (Removal, Concealment or Destruction of Documents). Decision reviewed by the Supreme Court was rendered in 1984; therefore, the 1973 Constitution was the controlling constitution at the time of decision.

Facts Relevant to Criminal Liability

As Clerk of Court, petitioner was the custodian of court records. Upon discovery that the original OCT No. 877 was missing from the Register of Deeds, petitioner ordered a subordinate to release the owner’s copy of OCT No. 877 to Geronimo Borja so Borja could effect administrative reconstitution. Borja signed a receipt stating he received OCT No. 877 “to be reconstituted” and that after reconstitution it would be returned to the court. There was no written order from the presiding judge authorizing release. After the 1975 fire that destroyed court records, petitioner certified the title as among those destroyed. Later developments revealed that Mrs. Trinidad Borja had obtained possession of and reconstituted the title; petitioner repeatedly asked for return but it could not be located. The prosecution did not allege profit or other improper advantage by petitioner.

Procedural Posture and Sandiganbayan Ruling

The Sandiganbayan found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Article 226, par. 2, Revised Penal Code, for removal or delivery of a document in the custody of public office. The court sentenced him to an indeterminate term (minimum arresto mayor to maximum prision correccional), fined him P500 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, imposed an additional temporary special disqualification, and ordered costs. Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Issue Presented

Whether petitioner’s removal and delivery of the owner’s copy of OCT No. 877 to Borja, without a written order from the presiding judge, constituted the crime of infidelity in the custody of documents (Article 226, par. 2, RPC), given petitioner’s stated motive and the surrounding circumstances.

Controlling Legal Principle: Mens Rea and Nature of the Act

The Supreme Court emphasized the foundational criminal-law maxim actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea: an act is not criminal unless accompanied by criminal intent, except where statute makes the mere act criminal (malum prohibitum). While a presumption of criminal intent may follow proof of a criminal act, that presumption arises only from proof of an act that is itself criminal. Thus, for infidelity in the custody of documents the prohibited acts (removal, concealment, destruction) must be performed with an illicit purpose (e.g., tampering, profiting, or other breach of trust) to constitute the offense.

Application of Principle to the Facts

Applying that principle, the Court found that petitioner’s act of delivering the owner’s copy to Borja was not motivated by illicit purpose but by an apparent lawful and commendable motive: to protect the state’s interest by enabling reconstitution of a title that, unreconstituted, would be ineffective as a property bond. The prosecution produced no evidence of bad faith, profit, tampering, or other illicit ends. The Court relied on the rule articulated in Kataniag v. People, distinguishing removal for illicit purposes (criminal) from removal for lawful or protective motives (not criminal), and concluded that the removal here fell into the latter category. The fact that no written judge’s order was issued and that the document was later missing did not, in the context of the evidence, establish criminal intent.

Burden of Proof and Presumptions

Although proof of a wrongful act can give rise to a presumption of criminal intent, that presumption presupposes a wrongful act of the character punishable by law. Because petitioner’s act was not proven to be wrongful in the requisite sense (i.e., done with illicit purpose), the presumption of criminal intent did not properly arise. The prosecution failed to rebut petitioner’

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-64750)

Case Citation and Procedural Posture

Reported at 212 Phil. 190, decided En Banc; G.R. No. L-64750; January 30, 1984.
Petition for review of the decision of the Sandiganbayan.
Decision authored by ESCOLIN, J.
Nature of the charge: conviction for infidelity in the custody of documents under Article 226, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code.
Dispositive portion of the Sandiganbayan decision (quoted in the record) reads in full:
- "WHEREFORE, the Court finds Selso M. Manzanaris guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of Violation of Art. 226, Revised Penal Code (Removal, Concealment or Destruction of Documents), defined and penalized under paragraph 2 thereof, and there being no mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, he is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of Three (3) Months and Eleven (11) Days of arresto mayor, as minimum, to One (1) Year, Eight (8) Months and Twenty-One (21) Days of prision correccional, as maximum; to pay a fine of Five Hundred (P500.00) Pesos, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; to suffer the additional penalty of Eleven (11) Years and One (1) Day of temporary special disqualification; and to pay the costs."

Parties and Roles

Petitioner: Atty. Selso M. Manzanaris, Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance of Basilan since 1963 up to the time of the decision; custodian of all records of the Court of First Instance of Basilan.
Respondents: People of the Philippines and the Honorable Sandiganbayan.
Other persons of record: Geronimo Borja (accused in Criminal Case No. 299 for malversation of public funds); Mrs. Trinidad M. Borja (wife of Geronimo Borja); Atty. Filoteo Jo (moved to borrow the title in 1981); the registered owner (deceased mother of Mrs. Trinidad Borja).

Factual Background (as summarized by the respondent court and the record)

Petitioner was the Clerk of Court and custodian of all court records for the Court of First Instance of Basilan from 1963 onward.
Criminal Case No. 299 (Geronimo Borja for malversation) included as part of the property bond a parcel covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 877 registered with the Register of Deeds of Basilan.
Petitioner, through a subordinate, discovered that the original OCT No. 877 was not existing in the Register of Deeds of Basilan.
Petitioner ordered a subordinate to deliver the owner's copy of Certificate of Title No. 877 to Geronimo Borja for the purpose of administrative reconstitution of the original title.
Borja was asked to sign a receipt for the title. The receipt’s contents stated: "Received from the Clerk of Court Selso M. Manzanaris OCT No. 877 to be reconstituted in the Register of Deeds x x x. After reconstitution to be returned to the court."
The release and delivery of the owner's certificate of title to Geronimo Borja was done without any written order from the presiding judge of the court.
Mrs. Trinidad M. Borja filed a petition with the Office of the Register of Deeds for administrative reconstitution of OCT No. 877 and succeeded in reconstituting the original in November, 1974. The reconstituted Certificate of Title No. 877 was not turned over to the court.
On June 11, 1975, the building housing the Court of First Instance of Basilan, including all records and documents of the court, were burned.
Sometime in 1981 Atty. Filoteo Jo filed a motion with the court to borrow OCT No. 877; the motion was denied based on petitioner’s certification that the title was among documents destroyed in the 1975 conflagration.
Atty. Jo later informed petitioner that Trinidad Borja had obtained possession of the title and had it reconstituted, which prompted petitioner to remember that he had delivered the title to Geronimo Borja and that Borja had issued