Conviction of ex-LRA exec for estafa, graft upheld

By Perfecto Raymundo, Jr.

December 21, 2018, 3:40 pm

MANILA -- The Sandiganbayan has upheld the conviction for estafa and graft of a former executive of the Land Registration Authority (LRA) over an alleged illegal land deal in 2010.

The Sandiganbayan First Division, in a decision dated Dec. 20, 2018, affirmed the joint decision dated Nov. 10, 2017 of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 85, which found former LRA Records Officer Maybel Umpa guilty of estafa and for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019, or the “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act”.

For the estafa and graft cases, the Quezon City RTC sentenced Umpa to a total of 16 years imprisonment.

The court also ordered Umpa to pay private complainant Lory Malibiran PHP620,000 in actual damages.

Court records showed that on July 2, 2013, the Office of the Ombudsman filed an estafa case against Umpa and her co-accused Carlito Castillo, a former Administrative Assistant III at LRA, for conspiring on Oct. 15, 2010 and facilitated the approved plan, tax declaration and the titling of the real estate property of Fernando Mamaril consisting of 7.2 hectares located in Rodriguez, Rizal.

Malibiran, together with other financers, bought the parcel of land for PHP620,000 cash.

Castillo was arraigned on Aug. 29, 2013 while Umpa was arraigned only on Aug. 11, 2015 in both cases, during which they separately entered a “not guilty” plea.

However, the cases against Castillo were dismissed on Dec. 2, 2014 upon execution by Malibiran of an affidavit of desistance effectively absolving him of the crimes.

In its ruling, the Sandiganbayan noted that "It was shown that she had prior knowledge that Castillo was never allowed to process the titling of lands. However, despite such knowledge on her part, she still endorsed Malibiran to Castillo and even received the former's money," it said.

In her appeal, Umpa argued that the Quezon City court gravely erred in giving full credence to the inconsistent and doubtful testimony of Malibiran. (PNA)

Comments