Case Summary (G.R. No. 183869)
Procedural History in the Trial Court
An Information was filed on January 16, 2008, charging Valenzona, as ALSGRO’s president, with willfully failing to register the sale instruments in violation of Section 17, PD 957, in relation to Section 39. The RTC found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt on May 29, 2014, imposing 1–2 years of imprisonment and a P20,000 fine. It ruled that non-registration within 180 days constituted the offense and that corporate liability under Section 39 made the president responsible regardless of good faith. Reconsideration was denied on September 22, 2014.
Court of Appeals Decision
On appeal, Valenzona submitted a compromise agreement and Porteo’s affidavit of desistance based on a P400,000 settlement. The OSG, however, opposed reversal. The CA, in its June 29, 2018 Decision, resolved the appeal on the merits and affirmed the RTC’s guilt finding, holding that compromise and desistance did not preclude criminal liability. A July 24, 2019 Motion for Reconsideration was denied.
Issues on Officer Liability
Valenzona’s Rule 45 Petition challenges the sufficiency of proof that he directly and actively participated in ALSGRO’s non-registration. He argues under ABS-CBN v. Gozon (2015) that corporate officer liability requires evidence of active participation or conspiracy in the prohibited act, not mere titular position.
Analysis of Criminal Liability under PD 957
Section 17 mandates registration of contracts to sell subdivision lots within 180 days. Section 39 penalizes any person violating PD 957, and in the case of corporations, holds the president or the person in charge of administration criminally responsible. While PD 957 offenses are malum prohibitum—punishing prohibited acts irrespective of moral turpitude—it remains the prosecution’s duty to prove that the accused intentionally committed the act constitutive of the crime.
Distinction Between Mala Prohibita and Intent
Crimes malum prohibitum dispense with proof of criminal intent but require proof of voluntariness or intent to perform the prohibited act itself. This differs from malum in se offenses, which demand proof of criminal intent. Even if intent to violate the law is irrelevant, the prosecution must establish that the accused freely and consciously perpetrated the act—here, non-registration.
Requirement of Active Participation and Volition
Corporate personality is distinct from its officers. Liability attaches only to officers who actively participate in, or have the power to prevent, the wrongful act. ABS-CBN and Supreme Court precedents require overt acts or intentional contribution by the officer. Valenzona testified that ALSG
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 183869)
Antecedents
- Felix G. Valenzona, as President of ALSGRO Industrial and Development Corporation, entered into two Contracts to Sell with Ricardo B. Porteo on March 24, 2003, covering subdivision Lots 17 and 19 in Bayfair of Margana Subdivision, Muntinlupa City, at P600,000 each, payable in installments.
- Porteo paid P499,000 by September 2003, then defaulted due to business reverses and sought a refund, which ALSGRO denied; he engaged counsel thereafter.
- A January 18, 2006 Registry of Deeds certification confirmed ALSGRO never registered the subject contracts, and Porteo discovered the lots were resold to third parties on July 6, 2004.
- Following ALSGRO’s refusal to refund P500,000, Porteo filed a criminal complaint against Valenzona for willfully violating Section 17 of Presidential Decree No. 957 (PD 957) by failing to register the Contracts to Sell.
- Valenzona maintained that registration was handled by a separate department (Marketing, Documentations, and Processing) and that, as President, he merely signed documents without overseeing their filing.
Issue
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Regional Trial Court’s conviction of Valenzona for violation of Section 17 of PD 957, when the prosecution allegedly failed to prove his direct and active participation or volition in the non-registration of the Contracts to Sell.
RTC Decision
- The RTC (Branch 203, Muntinlupa) on May 29, 2014 found Valenzona guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 17 of PD 957, in relation to Section 39.
- Imposed penalty: indeterminate imprisonment of one (1) to two (2) years, and a fine of P20,000.
- Rejected defenses of good faith, lack of intent, and departmental allocation of registration duties, holding that non-registration per se constituted the offense under a special law (mala prohibita).
- Decreed that civil claims for refund lay exclusively with the HLURB under PD 1344.
CA Decision
- The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated June 29, 2018, denied Valenzona’s appeal and affirmed the RTC’s conviction and penalty.
- Held that an executed compromise agreement and claimant’s affidavit of desistance did not bar resolution on the merits of the