April 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > April 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 158413 : April 15, 2009] CELSO M. MANUEL, EVANGELISTA A. MERU, FLORANTE A. MIANO AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. SANDIGANBAYAN [FOURTH DIVISION], MELCHOR M. MALLARE, AND ELIZABETH GOSUDAN :
[G.R. No. 158413 : April 15, 2009]
CELSO M. MANUEL, EVANGELISTA A. MERU, FLORANTE A. MIANO AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. SANDIGANBAYAN [FOURTH DIVISION], MELCHOR M. MALLARE, AND ELIZABETH GOSUDAN
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 15 April 2009:
G.R. No. 158413 - (Celso M. Manuel, Evangelista A. Mem, Florante A. Miano and People of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan [Fourth Division], Melchor M. Mallare, and Elizabeth Gosudan).
RESOLUTION
Herein Petition for Certiorari[1] and Addendum (To The Petition)[2] filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court by complainant Celso M. Manuel, Evangelista A. Meru, Florante A. Miano and People of the Philippines (petitioners) assail the May 20, 2002 Resolution[3] issued by the Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division) in Criminal Case No. 25673, granting the Motion to Reopen the Proceedings[4] of therein accused Melchor M. Mallare and Elizabeth M. Gosudan (respondents).
The Sandiganbayan had earlier rendered in Criminal Case No. 25673 a Decision[5] dated September 17, 2001, finding respondents guilty of Malversation of Public Funds and sentencing them to suffer the penalties of imprisonment, perpetual disqualification and fine. From the Decision, respondents filed with the Sandiganbayan a Motion for Reconsideration[6] but the same was denied in a Sandiganbayan Resolution[7] dated November 16, 2001. Notice of the said Resolution was received by respondent on December 5, 2001,[8] hence they had a fresh period of 15 days or until December 20, 2001 to file a Petition for Review with the Court[9] as prescribed under Section 7[10] of Presidential Decree No. 1606. On December 20, 2001, respondents filed instead a Motion to Reopen the Proceedings on the ground that the tactic employed by their counsel of not presenting respondent Mallare on the witness stand proved disastrous- to their defense that, to avoid a miscarriage of justice, a reopening of the proceedings is warranted so that respondent Mallare may testify.[11]
Petitioners argue that the Motion to Reopen the Proceedings is a second motion for reconsideration which is prohibited under Section 2,[12] Rule 52, that being a prohibited pleading, the motion did not toll respondents' period to appeal; that when respondents failed to avail of the prescribed mode of appeal, which is a petition for review with the Court, their conviction under the September 17, 2001 Sandiganbayan Decision became final on December 21, 2001; that in granting the Motion to Reopen the Proceedings, the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion for it had no more jurisdiction over the case,[13]
Petitioners further argue that respondent Mallare's failure to testify does not amount to miscarriage of justice. Respondent Mallare was present during every hearing and had ample opportunity to testify but his counsel opted not to present him - a calculated risk that binds respondents.[14]
The Solicitor General filed a Comment[15] in favor of granting the Petition.
Respondents filed their own Comment,[16] questioning the legal personality of petitioners. Petitioners filed their Reply,[17] maintaining their legal personality to file the present petition considering that the Office of the Special Prosecutor had interposed no objection thereto.[18]
Meanwhile, after receiving the testimony of respondent Mallare during the reopening of the proceeding in Criminal Case No. 25673, the Sandiganbayan issued on July 21, 2003 a Resolution, finding "no cogent reason to disturb or amend the Court's Decision promulgated on September 17, 2001".[19] Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration but the Sandiganbayan denied the same in a Resolution[20] dated November 13,2003.
Respondents then filed with the First Division of the Court a Petition for Review docketed as GR. No. 161133[21] where one of the grounds raised is that:
xxxx
III
Petitioner sought the consolidation of the present petition with GR. No. 161133[23] Upon instruction by the Court, Second Division Clerk of Court Ludichi Yasay-Nunag submitted a Report[24] that consolidation is not an absolute necessity, and that the present petition may have been rendered moot and academic in view of the issuance by the Sandiganbayan of its July 20, 2003 Resolution.
Indeed, in its July 20, 2003 Resolution, the Sandiganbayan completely disregarded the evidence which respondent Mallare presented during the reopening of Criminal Case No. 25673, to wit:
The Sandiganbayan reiterated in its November 13, 2003 Resolution the observation that the belated testimony of respondent Mallare was a mere afterthought.[26]
Respondents raised in GR. No. 161133 the issue of whether the Sandiganbayan erred in disregarding the testimony of respondent Mallare during the reopening of the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 25673. If the Third Division of the Court were to resolve the issue raised in the herein petition, specifically on the nature and effect of the failure of respondent Mallare to testify, the same would preempt the disposition by the First Division of one of the issues in GR. No. 161133.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, let G.R. No. 158413 be consolidated with GR. No. 161133 although the former bears a lower number.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 158413 - (Celso M. Manuel, Evangelista A. Mem, Florante A. Miano and People of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan [Fourth Division], Melchor M. Mallare, and Elizabeth Gosudan).
RESOLUTION
Herein Petition for Certiorari[1] and Addendum (To The Petition)[2] filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court by complainant Celso M. Manuel, Evangelista A. Meru, Florante A. Miano and People of the Philippines (petitioners) assail the May 20, 2002 Resolution[3] issued by the Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division) in Criminal Case No. 25673, granting the Motion to Reopen the Proceedings[4] of therein accused Melchor M. Mallare and Elizabeth M. Gosudan (respondents).
The Sandiganbayan had earlier rendered in Criminal Case No. 25673 a Decision[5] dated September 17, 2001, finding respondents guilty of Malversation of Public Funds and sentencing them to suffer the penalties of imprisonment, perpetual disqualification and fine. From the Decision, respondents filed with the Sandiganbayan a Motion for Reconsideration[6] but the same was denied in a Sandiganbayan Resolution[7] dated November 16, 2001. Notice of the said Resolution was received by respondent on December 5, 2001,[8] hence they had a fresh period of 15 days or until December 20, 2001 to file a Petition for Review with the Court[9] as prescribed under Section 7[10] of Presidential Decree No. 1606. On December 20, 2001, respondents filed instead a Motion to Reopen the Proceedings on the ground that the tactic employed by their counsel of not presenting respondent Mallare on the witness stand proved disastrous- to their defense that, to avoid a miscarriage of justice, a reopening of the proceedings is warranted so that respondent Mallare may testify.[11]
Petitioners argue that the Motion to Reopen the Proceedings is a second motion for reconsideration which is prohibited under Section 2,[12] Rule 52, that being a prohibited pleading, the motion did not toll respondents' period to appeal; that when respondents failed to avail of the prescribed mode of appeal, which is a petition for review with the Court, their conviction under the September 17, 2001 Sandiganbayan Decision became final on December 21, 2001; that in granting the Motion to Reopen the Proceedings, the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion for it had no more jurisdiction over the case,[13]
Petitioners further argue that respondent Mallare's failure to testify does not amount to miscarriage of justice. Respondent Mallare was present during every hearing and had ample opportunity to testify but his counsel opted not to present him - a calculated risk that binds respondents.[14]
The Solicitor General filed a Comment[15] in favor of granting the Petition.
Respondents filed their own Comment,[16] questioning the legal personality of petitioners. Petitioners filed their Reply,[17] maintaining their legal personality to file the present petition considering that the Office of the Special Prosecutor had interposed no objection thereto.[18]
Meanwhile, after receiving the testimony of respondent Mallare during the reopening of the proceeding in Criminal Case No. 25673, the Sandiganbayan issued on July 21, 2003 a Resolution, finding "no cogent reason to disturb or amend the Court's Decision promulgated on September 17, 2001".[19] Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration but the Sandiganbayan denied the same in a Resolution[20] dated November 13,2003.
Respondents then filed with the First Division of the Court a Petition for Review docketed as GR. No. 161133[21] where one of the grounds raised is that:
xxxx
III
The Sandiganbayan misunderstood the nature of a motion for the reopening of the proceedings, which it ironically granted, and did not properly consider the additional exculpatory evidence presented by Mallare and misapplied a Supreme Court decision in dismissing the additional evidence.[22]
Petitioner sought the consolidation of the present petition with GR. No. 161133[23] Upon instruction by the Court, Second Division Clerk of Court Ludichi Yasay-Nunag submitted a Report[24] that consolidation is not an absolute necessity, and that the present petition may have been rendered moot and academic in view of the issuance by the Sandiganbayan of its July 20, 2003 Resolution.
Indeed, in its July 20, 2003 Resolution, the Sandiganbayan completely disregarded the evidence which respondent Mallare presented during the reopening of Criminal Case No. 25673, to wit:
After a thorough of the additional evidence presented, the primary purpose of which is to avoid culpability arising from his admission of an outstanding loan from his co-accused as evidence by his signature on Exhibit "K", the Court finds the argument without merit. The Supreme Court held that "as between a writing or document made contemporaneously with a transaction in which are evidenced facts pertinent to an issue, when admitted as proof of these facts, is ordinarily regarded as more reliable proof and of greater probative value than oral testimony of a witness as to such facts based upon memory or recollection." (People vs. Fabro, 325 SCRA 285 [2000]). The Court correctly gave credence and weight to the spontaneous and candid admission by accused Mallare of the existence of this loan obligation to the municipality when he affixed Ms signature on Exhibit "C". The testimony of the accused when this case was reopen may be regarded as mere afterthought and should not be given greater weight as to reverse his conviction.[25] (Emphasis added)
The Sandiganbayan reiterated in its November 13, 2003 Resolution the observation that the belated testimony of respondent Mallare was a mere afterthought.[26]
Respondents raised in GR. No. 161133 the issue of whether the Sandiganbayan erred in disregarding the testimony of respondent Mallare during the reopening of the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 25673. If the Third Division of the Court were to resolve the issue raised in the herein petition, specifically on the nature and effect of the failure of respondent Mallare to testify, the same would preempt the disposition by the First Division of one of the issues in GR. No. 161133.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, let G.R. No. 158413 be consolidated with GR. No. 161133 although the former bears a lower number.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Asst. Clerk of Court
LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, p. 3.
[2] Id. at 149.
[3] Penned by Associate Justice Nicodemo T. Ferrer and concurred in by Associate Justices Narciso S. Nario and Rodolfo G. Palattao; rollo, p. 129.
[4] Id. at 119.
[5] Id. at 75.
[6] Id. at 101.
[7] Id. at 114.
[8] Motion to Reopen the Proceedings, id. at 119.
[9] See Neypes v. Court of Appeals, GR. No. 141524, September 14: 2005, 469 SCRA 633.
[10] Section 7. Form, finality and enforcement of decisions. Decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbayan shall contain complete findings of facts on all issues properly raised before it.
A petition for reconsideration of any final order or judgment, and such petition for reconsideration shall be decided within thirty (30) days from submission thereon.
Decision and final orders shall be subject to review on certiorari by the Supreme Court in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The Supreme Court, shall decide any case on appeal promptly and without the necessity of placing it upon the regular calendar. Whenever, in any case decided, the death penalty shall have been review and judgment, as law and justice shall dictate.
Final judgment and orders of the Sandiganbayan shall be executed and enforced in the manner provided by law.
[11] Motion to Reopen the Proceedings, rollo, p. 120.
[12] Sec. 2. Second motion for reconsideration. No second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained.
[13] Petition, rollo, pp. 15-26.
[14] Id. at 29-34.
[15] Id. at 202.
[16] Id. at 260
[17] Id. at 427.
[18] Id. at 138-147.
[19] Penned by Associate Justice Norberto Y. Geraldez and concurred in by Associate Justices Gregory S. Ong and Rodolfo G. Palattao; rollo (GR. No. 161133), p. 80.
[20] Rollo (GR. No. 161133), p. 81.
[21] Id. at 229-230.
[22] Rollo (G.R. No. 161133), p. 18.
[23] Id. at 220.
[24] Id. at 225.
[25] Supra note 19.
[26] Supra note 20.
