SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

DISSENTING OPINION

(on the Resolution Granting Petitioner's

Motion for Reconsideration)

PANGANIBAN, J.:

In its Decision promulgated on January 29, 1998, this Court (through its Third Division), voting three¹ to two,² AFFIRMED (1) the conviction of Petitioner Imelda R. Marcos for violation of the Anti-Graft Law in Criminal Case No. 17450, and (2) the penalty of imprisonment of nine years and one day as minimum to twelve years and ten days as maximum. It also ordered her to pay the Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) P189,372,000, the amount the government lost because of her criminal acts.

In view of the appointment of two new members to the Court, namely, Justices Leonardo A. Quisumbing and Fidel P. Purisima, the three Divisions of the Court were reorganized on February 1, 1998. The Chief Justice transferred Justice Melo to the Second Division; and Justice Panganiban, to the First. Justices Kapunan and Purisima were, in turn, assigned to the Third Division in addition to the three retained members, namely, Chief Justice Narvasa and Justices Romero and Francisco. However, on February 13, 1998, Justice Francisco retired from the Court upon reaching the age of 70.

Hence, when petitioner filed her Motion for Reconsideration (MR) on February 18, 1998, the Third Division had only four members (Chief Justice Narvasa and Justices Romero, Kapunan and Purisima). After several attempts to deliberate and resolve the MR and upon motion of petitioner, the Division finally decided to elevate the matter to the Court en banc, which in turn accepted it.³ Although as a member of the banc, I had initial reservations on the propriety of elevating the MR to the full court, as it is well-settled that the banc is not an appellate body to which decisions of Divisions may be brought, I finally supported the referral in view of the unanimous request of all the four incumbent members of the Third Division. In fact, the banc's acceptance was unanimous, too. Again upon motion of petitioner, the banc heard oral argument on the MR on September 10, 1998, and thereafter required the parties to file their respective memoranda. Even if all the arguments raised in the MR had already been considered and passed upon in our January 29, 1998 Decision, I acceded (as all the Court members did) to the oral argument to forestall any further charge of denial of due process, which petitioner had repeatedly leveled at the Sandiganbayan.

I write these preliminary matters to show that this Court has bent backwards to accord the former First Lady of the land all the legal opportunities to defend herself - a right that she vehemently claims was denied her by the lower court.

I realize, and I am sure each member of this Court does too, that this case involves not merely a judgment on the acts of the former First Lady. By its Decision here, this Court will be evaluated by the nation and by the world. History will judge this Court - how it acted and how each member participated and voted. What we say and write here will still be remembered and discussed by our countrymen and by the world fifty years from now, when all of us are, in all likelihood, already in the Great Beyond.

Having said that, I will now discuss the issues raised in the MR.

The Issues

To support her plea of acquittal in her Motion for Reconsideration, Petitioner Marcos alleges the following:

1. She did not "enter, on behalf of the government," (through the LRTA) into the lease contract that was allegedly "manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government."

2. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she violated Section 3 (g) of RA 3019, as amended, specifically because there is no evidence showing the fair and reasonable rental of the subject property.

3. The Decision of the Sandiganbayan was rendered without jurisdiction.

4. Petitioner was denied her right to counsel.

All these "grounds" were already raised in her Petition and resolved in our January 29, 1998 Decision. Normally then, the MR should have been denied with the usual minute resolution, which abhors mere repetition of arguments already passed upon. Since in the said Decision of January 29, 1998, I did not write any opinion on these matters but merely concurred in Justice Romero's ponencia, I thought it now prudent to refute each of petitioner's arguments seriatim.

First Ground:

Petitioner, as a Public Official, "Entered" into the

Lease Agreement on Behalf of the Government

On the first ground, petitioner elucidates in her Memorandum that as a public officer, she did not sign the lease contract on behalf of the government. She merely signed it as chairperson of the Philippine General Hospital Foundation, Inc. (PGHFI). Ergo, she cannot be held liable for violating Section 3 (g) of RA 3019, the Anti-Graft Law, which reads:

"(g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby." (Italics supplied)

It does not take too much imagination to see the obvious flaw in this argument. Plainly, the law does not use the word "signing." It employs the word "entering." Definitely, signing is not the only way of entering into a transaction. Those who authorized, approved or assented to such contract must be held equally, if not more, accountable for having entered into the agreement. The campaign against graft and corruption would be seriously undermined, if only the obedient underlings are punished, while the bigwigs who ordered, authorized, approved or assented to such anomalous contracts are freed of accountability. That is simply unconscionable!

Furthermore, the fact that Petitioner Marcos was chairman of the board of directors of the LRTA, in which was vested the power to carry out the functions of the agency, proves her actual participation as a public officer, albeit indirectly, in the execution of the lease contract on behalf of the LRTA. She had actually entered into the anomalous contract in a double capacity: as chair of the lessor, acting through an agent (in the person of Jose Dans, Jr.); and as head of the lessee, signing the contract on behalf of the PGHFI.

Under its charter,⁴ the powers and functions of the LRTA were "vested in and exercised by the Board of Directors."⁵ This simply means that, as Solicitor General Ricardo P. Galvez correctly construes, the agency "can officially act only through its Board of Directors." In fact, in the exercise of its general powers, among which was the power to lease real property, the LRTA was specifically mandated to act "through the Board of Directors."⁶cräläwvirtualibräry

Consistent with the provisions of EO 603, the lease agreement executed between LRTA and PGHFI stated in unequivocal terms that Dans, the signatory on behalf of LRTA, was "duly authorized for the purpose." This qualification can only mean that Dans was priorly mandated by the proper body - the LRTA board of directors - to sign the said contract. There is no evidence whatsoever that the LRTA board did not authorize the transaction. Hence, the presumption of regularity operates and applies.

Being the chairman of the board at the time, Petitioner Marcos is assumed to have given her approval to the execution of the contract by the LRTA. She could or should have known that, indeed, the board she chaired gave such authority. She, however, insists that this fact has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

I strongly disagree. What could her representation of the PGHFI, the other party to the lease agreement, manifest other than her full knowledge of and unqualified consent to the contract? In other words, Petitioner Marcos cannot deny her knowledge of and consent to the contract which LRTA entered into. She was the signing officer of the other party (the lessee) to the same contract! There was no way she could not have known with whom she was contracting (that is, that she was contracting virtually with herself), as well as the specific terms of the contract. She could not have blindly bound PGHFI to the agreement with LRTA, if she had disapproved of LRTA entering into the same contract. Considering that at the time she was not only LRTA chair, but also human settlements minister, Metropolitan Manila governor and First Lady, it is simply inconceivable that the LRTA board would authorize the contract without her approval! To hold otherwise is to be blind to the obvious. Verily, to all legal intents and purposes, Petitioner Marcos authorized and effectively "entered" into the lease agreement on behalf of LRTA, a government agency.

Had she disapproved, even ex post facto, of LRTA's participation, petitioner could have sought the rescission of the LRTA-PGHFI agreement, when she became aware of the terms of the sublease contract and realized the manifest and gross disadvantage at which LRTA had been placed. She could then have sought to contract directly with the sublessee, the Transnational Construction Corporation (TNCC). But she made no such efforts. There is no showing that petitioner ever denounced the original lease contract as grossly disadvantageous to the government, even after she had learned of the great disparity in the rentals. No, she did not. The whole transaction was a charade devised openly to benefit her private foundation at the expense of the government.

She belatedly claims before the media that she simply raised funds through "creative financing" in order to extend assistance to a hospital. But such defense was never presented in court. Other than her out-of-court utterances, petitioner has submitted no evidence whatsoever to indicate that the money gained by PGHFI from TNCC (and lost by the LRTA) was actually spent for a hospital or any other charitable purpose, for that matter. Even if she has, such submission would be beside the point.

Under the circumstances of the case, to claim that she, as a public officer, did not approve of the lease by the LRTA is pure sophistry. And for her to add that, even if she knew of the transaction, she did not directly represent and sign for the government and is thus deserving of acquittal, is to render the Anti-Graft Law toothless. Furthermore, to insist that her approval must be independently proven "beyond reasonable doubt" is a futile and unworthy argument in the face of the very documents where, unquestionably, her signature appears.

Petitioner also harps on Dans' acquittal, arguing that she, as a mere conspirator, must also be acquitted. True, in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.⁷ But the converse does not always follow; the absence of conspiracy does not necessarily result in the acquittal of all or both alleged conspirators. The innocence of one is not absolute proof of the innocence of the other. For one may have acted independently of the other; and for one's own felonious acts, he or she alone is liable.⁸ Indeed, this Court found no evidence of conspiracy. And petitioner was convicted not because of conspiratorial acts, but because of her own acts.

In the instant case, Dans' guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, because his participation in the sublease agreement had not been duly established. This cannot be said of Petitioner Marcos. There is no equivocation in the earlier finding that she actively participated in both the lease and the sublease.

Second Ground:

Manifest and Gross Disadvantage

Proven Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Petitioner avers that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that "manifest and gross disadvantage to the government" was caused by the LRTA-PGHFI-TNCC masquerade. While the terms have not been explicitly defined by law or jurisprudence, I agree with the common and accepted meanings of manifest and gross, as culled by Solicitor General Galvez from Black's Law Dictionary:⁹cräläwvirtualibräry

"'Manifest' means obvious to the understanding, evident to the mind, not obscure or hidden, and is synonymous with open, clear, visible, unmistakable, indubitable, evident and self-evident. In evidence, that which is notorious. On the other hand, 'gross' means flagrant, shameful, such conduct as is not to be excused x x x."

The lease and sublease agreements, construed together, speak for themselves. There can be no stronger evidence of the blatant discrepancy in the rental amounts and the resulting "gross and manifest disadvantage" sustained by the lessor - the LRTA, which is a government agency.

A simple mathematical computation will illustrate the huge amount which the government lost thereby. LRTA leased the property at P102,760 per month to the PGHFI, which in turn subleased it to the TNCC for seven times that amount, at P734,000, resulting in a net loss to the government in the amount of P621,240 a month, or a grand total of P189,372,000 for the 25-year term of the two agreements. In other words, the PGHFI, the middleman, pocketed six times more than the LRTA, the property owner.

Petitioner argues that the prosecution should have presented expert opinion to show which of the two rental amounts was the "fair and reasonable" price. However, the law (RA 3019) does not speak of fair or reasonable price. It speaks of "gross and manifest disadvantage." And what better evidence is there of such prejudice than the two contracts themselves, which show the great loss incurred by the people and the government. Opinion cannot prevail over hard fact!

In view of these actual, concrete and operative contracts, which provided terms that were complete and facts that were indelible, expert opinion, if not entirely worthless, certainly cannot prevail. The expert witness' testimony cannot rebut and overcome the contents of the executed documents, specifically the rental price that the property actually commanded.

Such utter uselessness of expert opinion is demonstrated by Ramon F. Cuervo's testimony. His opinion of the "fair and reasonable" rental value of the property was based on "offers for sale, actual sales and appraisal jobs x x x of comparable [bare] lots in the same vicinity."¹⁰ He did not consider the improvements and commerce that would be brought about by the operation of the adjacent LRT stations.

Be it remembered that the subject agreement and the rentals stipulated would become demandable only after the start of the LRT operations, or when the PGHFI would commence its business.¹¹ Such being the case, mere "expert" opinion based on the then prevailing rentals would be totally immaterial and irrelevant. Thus, Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Garchitorena had to elicit from the witness what would be the fair and reasonable rental value, if these factors were taken into account. In response, Cuervo estimated that the amount would likely double.¹²cräläwvirtualibräry

Still, this was merely his estimate. The indubitable fact remains, as shown by the sublease contract executed between PGHFI and TNCC, that the leased property commanded seven times more than the amount for which LRTA rented it out. TNCC, a private commercial enterprise, would not have unwittingly or moronically agreed to pay a ludicrously high amount to PGHFI if it did not indeed value the subject property at that amount.

Moreover, it is undisputed that, as pointed out by the Republic's counsel, the LRTA-PGHFI agreements themselves state in no uncertain terms that the unabashed purpose of the lease was to extend financial advantage to the PGHFI, viz.:

"x x x The AUTHORITY (LRTA), realizing the charitable objectives of the FOUNDATION (PGHF) is desirous of extending financial support which can be derived from the development of such areas, for the pursuit of the objectives of the FOUNDATION x x x."¹³cräläwvirtualibräry

"x x x the LESSEE (PGHF), as a means of generating funds to undertake its projects (to establish, maintain or equip medical institutions), has been granted by the Light Rail Transit Authority the right, authority, permit and license to develop the areas adjacent to the Light Rail Transit Stations, and manage and operate the concessions in such areas x x x

"x x x the LESSOR, realizing that the business of developing the specified areas adjacent to the LRT stations and of taking charge of the management and operation of the concessions therein, whose earnings will be used to fund medical services and facilities, charities and other benevolent projects of the FOUNDATION in Metro Manila, will be directly beneficial to the residents therein, and realizing also that the LESSEE finds it necessary to use these parcels of land described in the first paragraph, for the above-mentioned purposes, has agreed to lease the above-described property to the LESSEE x x x"¹⁴cräläwvirtualibräry

In disregard of the law, the government, through petitioner, accommodated a private institution that was raising funds. The net effect of the juggling scheme, however, was the plunder of government earnings. Whether the funds raised were actually used for charitable and benevolent purposes, a matter claimed but not proven at all, will not erase the illegality of petitioner's maneuverings.

Petitioner repeatedly carps at the charges that she had authorized the anomalous transactions and that the government was placed at a gross and manifest disadvantage. She terms such conclusions "mere speculations or conjectures." They definitely are not. They are logical inferences from known and proven facts, or matters that the Court may take judicial notice of. To require proof that petitioner directly admitted authorizing the two contracts is to demand the unreasonable. If she did that, there would have been no need for trial. To require such proof is to require a virtual confession of guilt! On the other hand, to ask for expert opinion on fair and reasonable rental in the face of hard evidence of actual rental value clearly demonstrating manifest and gross disadvantage is to require a superfluity, an exercise in legal inutility.

In sum, petitioner was well aware of the manifest and gross disadvantage incurred by the government, when the LRTA property was leased out for an almost token amount through the execution of the subject contracts, which she, as a public official, was deemed to have entered into on behalf of the government.

Third Ground:

Decision of Sandiganbayan Valid

An error or irregularity in the rendition of a judgment does not affect the court's jurisdiction; neither does it affect the validity of the judgment. While error in jurisdiction makes the judgment or order void or voidable,¹⁵ an error in the exercise of jurisdiction does not.¹⁶ The decision rendered in the latter is correctable merely through an appeal.¹⁷ This remedy of appeal has already been availed of by petitioner's filing of the present recourse before this Court.

Consistent with the above principles, I respectfully submit that the assailed Decision of the Sandiganbayan (First Division) cannot be rendered void (or even voidable) simply because of an irregularity, assuming arguendo that it existed, in its rendition. Worth noting is the fact that petitioner took the recourse of filing a petition for review under Rule 45, not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, the proper remedy to annul judgments rendered without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.¹⁸cräläwvirtualibräry

Years ago, the Court taught the difference between "jurisdiction" and the "practice and method of procedure of the court" in these very explicit terms:¹⁹cräläwvirtualibräry

"x x x the word 'jurisdiction' refers to something which, if once possessed by a court, does not vanish in the vicissitudes of decision. After a cause over which a division has undoubted jurisdiction has been debated and considered, the jurisdiction of the body does not cease when it is discovered that only three out of four or five of the members of the division concur in the prevailing view. This shows that the matter of the requirement of a certain number for the decision of a case is a matter of practice and procedure rather than of fundamental jurisdiction. Where a body consisting of more than two members is created, it must, by the very law of its being, be allowed to proceed upon a mere majority, in the absence of specific provision for a majority consisting of a precise number." (Italics ours.)

In Faypon v. Quirino,²⁰ a Resolution of the Court en banc, dated September 15, 1952, was invoked in order to set aside a judgment of the Court of Appeals for alleged want of jurisdiction. Said Resolution required that when there was no unanimous concurrence in a division of three, the presiding justice was to designate two additional associate justices "by rotation in the order of seniority." Such manner of choice was not observed by the appellate court, but this Court said that the "alleged violation of the resolution does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to hear and decide the case before it on appeal. If the alleged irregular designation be a sufficient ground for setting aside the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeals and remanding the case to it for further proceedings, it would unnecessarily delay the disposition of this case to the detriment of public interest."

The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is defined principally in PD 1606, as amended, and additionally in special laws, such as RA 7080 on plunder and EO 14 on ill-gotten wealth cases.²¹ Specifically, Section 4 of PD 1606, as amended by PD 1861, vests in the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction over "all cases involving: (1) violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act x x x." There should therefore be no question on said court's jurisdiction over the case at bar - a proceeding for a violation by petitioner of the Anti-Graft Law. Rather, the material issue involved is the authority of the Sandiganbayan's First Division to issue its assailed September 24, 1993 Decision.

I submit that the First Division of the Sandiganbayan not only had the jurisdiction to resolve the case at bar, but the authority as well. The alleged flaw in the rendition of its Decision was a procedural technicality that did not oust it of jurisdiction. While the initial absence of a unanimous concurrence of the three members in the said Division necessitated the designation of two additional justices to form a temporary special division of five, it must be stressed that the purpose of such designation was simply to obtain the concurrence of at least three in the final judgment, pursuant to the requirement of PD 1606.²²cräläwvirtualibräry

But the subsequent change in disposition of the two original members of the First Division, such that a unanimity in conclusion among all three original members was reached, practically aborted the purpose of the special division. Because of this development, the presiding justice forthwith revoked his previous order appointing the two additional magistrates, in effect dissolving the special division. Obviously, there was no more need for additional members. I think it is also worth noting that the unanimous concurrence of the original division members had been arrived at, even before the special division convened. In any event, the more conclusive fact is the final and indubitable vote appearing on the Decision itself of each of the three justices in the Division.

Furthermore, the law and the rules of the Sandiganbayan do not expressly provide under what circumstances and in what manner a special division may be dissolved. Such being the case, how can the Court attribute error, irregularity or abuse of discretion to Presiding Justice Garchitorena's actions? As similarly provided in Section 5 of PD 1606, as amended, the Sandiganbayan rules simply state:²³cräläwvirtualibräry

"SEC. 1. Votes Necessary to Decide. --

x x x

"(b) In Division. - The unanimous vote of three Justices in a Division shall be necessary for the rendition of a judgment or order. In the event that the three Justices do not reach a unanimous vote, the Presiding Justice shall designate by raffle two Justices from among the other members of the Sandiganbayan to sit temporarily with them forming a special Division of five Justices, and the vote of a majority of such special Division shall be necessary for the rendition of a judgment or order." (Italics supplied)

Clearly, the presiding justice has the authority to designate two additional justices if the need arises. Since the said Rules do not provide who may dissolve a special division and under what circumstances it may be dissolved, it follows that the presiding justice likewise possesses the power to revoke such designation when the need therefor ceases. Note that the Rules expressly state that the two additional justices sit only temporarily - meaning as long as there is a need for them. In the instant case, the ensuing unanimity among the three original members of the Division rendered such designation functus oficio. Thus, the revocation by Presiding Justice Garchitorena of his earlier order forming the special Division was not irregular. There being no violation of a law or rule, the Sandiganbayan could not have been ousted of jurisdiction, and neither could petitioner have been denied due process, under the circumstances.

While it is desirable to observe procedural rules faithfully and even meticulously, courts should not be overly strict with procedural lapses that do not really impair the proper administration of justice.²⁴ Rules are mere tools designed to facilitate the administration and the attainment of justice.²⁵ Where no serious injustice or grave abuse of discretion is committed, a suspension of the operation of adjective rules is not proscribed.

In the case at bar, no substantive right of petitioner was traversed by the First Division of the Sandiganbayan. She was given full opportunity to participate in the trial. All the defenses she offered were addressed by the court a quo, as well as by this Court. All the points -- factual, procedural and legal -- that she raised in her 93-page Petition were thoroughly taken up in the earlier Decision of this Court's Third Division. Through her Motion for Reconsideration and by way of oral argument and written memorandum, she was given several opportunities to amplify the same defenses before the Court en banc. I say, she has been more than fully heard.

Moreover, petitioner's plea for acquittal due to the alleged nullity of the Sandiganbayan judgment cannot be granted. A void judgment of conviction may entitle the accused only to a remand of the case to the trial court for further proceedings conformably with law.²⁶ A remand of her case to the graft court for another full-length proceeding will not only be a waste of time and effort, but a virtual approbation of trifling with the judicial process, a mockery of it. It would be a cop-out.

Fourth Ground:

No Denial of Right to Counsel

Records clearly show that Petitioner Marcos was represented by counsel during the entire trial proceedings. The failure of her counsel to appear in a couple of scheduled hearings²⁷ is not equivalent to a deprivation by the Sandiganbayan of her right to counsel. In her own words, "[n]otices of hearing were being sent directly to her," and her counsel "was apparently notified." Aside from the written notices, she was also informed by telephone. But, apparently, she chose not to be present; neither did she ensure the presence of her counsel in all the hearings. Well-settled is the rule that the negligence of counsel binds the party-litigant. It is also incumbent upon a party to take an active role, thus:

"Litigants represented by counsel, should not expect that all they need to do is sit back, relax and await the outcome of their case. They should give the necessary assistance to their counsel for what is at stake is their interest in the case."²⁸cräläwvirtualibräry

Neither did the suspension of her initial counsel of record (Atty. Antonio Coronel) from the practice of law amount to a deprivation of her right to counsel. She was continually represented by various lawyers. The fact that some²⁹ were contemned by the Sandiganbayan for effectively continuing the practice of Atty. Coronel did not altogether forfeit her representation. It does not appear that the actual participation of any of these contemned lawyers during the proceedings or any of the pleadings they had filed was stricken from the records or disregarded by the court a quo.

In any event, as I have mentioned earlier, petitioner's defenses, even those belatedly raised before this Court only, have been thoroughly reviewed, evaluated and duly considered. Whatever shortcomings, if any, she may have perceived in the Sandiganbayan proceedings must have been rectified by this Court, even twice over -- by the Third Division and by the banc. Here, she is represented by one of the most adroit legal minds in this country, Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza. No longer can she whimper and whine about counsel deprivation.

Epilogue

To say that Petitioner Marcos could not be held criminally liable simply because she did not sign the lease contract in her public capacity is either pure naivet or utter sophistry designed to create an improvident loophole to circumvent what is glaring: that this lease-and-sublease charade was a clever device to illegally siphon into private hands money that should properly go to the coffers of the government. Such charade cannot and should not be allowed! This Court has the duty to unmask and to condemn this raid against the public treasury. No amount of verbal juggling or legal nit-picking can alter the indelible fact that petitioner, by this ingenious but illegal method, has deprived the government of badly needed revenues.

Equally untenable is petitioner's contention that she deserves acquittal, because the prosecution did not present expert opinion showing the fair and reasonable rental price for the disputed premises. Be it remembered that the Anti-Graft Law requires proof, not of "fair and reasonable" price, but of "manifest and gross disadvantage" to the government. The glaring disparity between the two rental amounts, totaling P189 million which the lease-sublease charade diverted to private hands, is more than enough monument to graft. Certainly, such concrete and actual fact cannot be overturned by mere opinion, however expert it may be. Indubitably, in the presence of the incontrovertible fact of government loss, any opinion of what constitutes "fair price" is not only superfluous but counter-productive.

Petitioner's claim of irregularity or denial of due process in the Sandiganbayan proceedings is plainly baseless. In any event, such allegation is not enough to warrant an invalidation of the judgment of conviction. Neither can it justify a remand to the anti-graft court. Such sidetrack, I repeat, is an obvious cop-out. If at all, the alleged defects do not impair the lower court's jurisdiction or the binding effect of its Decision. They can, at best, only be grounds for possible administrative sanctions.

Finally, the over-indulgent attention given by this Court - initially by the Third Division and then the banc, with full oral argument and written memorandum - is more than sufficient proof that petitioner has been granted due process. In fact, I believe she has, in more ways than one, been the recipient of "over-due" process in this Court.

WHEREFORE, I vote to DENY with finality the Motion for Reconsideration and to AFFIRM the conviction of petitioner for graft.

Endnotes:

---

¹ CJ Narvasa, JJ. Romero (ponente) and Panganiban

² JJ . Melo and Francisco (who wrote the dissent).

³ Under a Resolution of the Court en banc, dated November 18, 1993, "the following are considered en banc cases:

xxx xxx xxx

"8. Cases assigned to a division which, in the opinion of at least three (3) members thereof, merit the attention of the Court en banc and are acceptable to a majority of the actual membership of the Court en banc;"

⁴ EO 603, July 12, 1980.

⁵ 3, ibid

⁶ 4, ibid.

⁷ People v. Lopez, 249 SCRA 610, October 30, 1995; People v. Liquiran, 228 SCRA 62, November 19, 1993

⁸ People v. Go Shiu Ling, 251 SCRA 379, December 14, 1995, citing People v. Dramayo, 42 SCRA 59 (1971); Pareo v. Sandiganbayan, 256 SCRA 242, April 17, 1996.

⁹ Special Deluxe, 5th ed. (Solicitor General's Memorandum, p. 19).

¹⁰ Justice Francisco's Concurring and Dissenting Opinion on the main Decision, pp. 9-10 & 12, citing (Witness Cuervo's) TSN, August 12, 1992, pp. 23-24, 27-28.

¹¹ Under the lease agreement, the PGHFI would start paying the monthly rental only after either of the following has happened, whichever is earlier:

(a) The date the LRT is fully operational.

(b) The date when the lessee commences its business operations

¹² Sandiganbayan Decision, p. 48.

¹³ "Agreement for the Development of the Areas Adjacent to the Light Rail Transit System" (Exh. "A").

¹⁴ "Lease Agreement" (Exh. "B").

¹⁵ Lamagan v. De la Cruz, 40 SCRA 101 (1971).

¹⁶ See Lim v. Pacquing, 236 SCRA 211, September 1, 1994.

¹⁷ Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals, 257 SCRA 200, June 4, 1996. See also "No Grave Abuse of Discretion or Excess of Jurisdiction" by Prof. Lohel A. Martirez, annotated in 91 SCRA 471

¹⁸ Sanchez v. Court of Appeals, 279 SCRA 647, September 29, 1997; Fortich v. Corona, GR No. 131457, April 24, 1998.

¹⁹ Buenviaje v. Director of Lands, 49 Phil 939, 943 (1927), per Street, J.

²⁰ 96 Phil 294, 296 (1954).

²¹ Garcia, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 237 SCRA 552, 562-563, October 7, 1994.

²² "SEC. 5. Proceedings, how conducted; votes required. -- The unanimous vote of the three justices in a division shall be necessary for the pronouncement of a judgment. In the event that the three justices do not reach a unanimous vote, the Presiding Justice shall designate two other justices from among the members of the Court to sit temporarily with them, forming a division of five justices, and the concurrence of a majority of such division shall be necessary for rendering judgment."

²³ Rule XVIII, Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan.

²⁴ Mauna v. Civil Service Commission, 232 SCRA 388, May 13, 1994.

²⁵ Buan v. Court of Appeals, 235 SCRA 424, August 17, 1994.

²⁶ See People v. Estomaca, 256 SCRA 421, April 22, 1996; People v. Veneracion, 249 SCRA 244, October 12, 1995; People v. Bellaflor, 233 SCRA 196, June 15, 1994, citing Solis v. Court of Appeals, 38 SCRA 53 (1971).

²⁷ Allegedly on August 12, 1992 and November 27, 1992 (Motion for Reconsideration, pp. 45-46).

²⁸ Bernardo v. Court of Appeals, 275 SCRA 413, 429, July 14, 1997, quoting Greenhills Airconditioning Services, Inc. v. NLRC, 245 SCRA 384, June 27, 1995.

²⁹ Attys. Luis Sillano and Renato Dilag.