ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 143802. January 17, 2001]

REYNOLAN T. SALES vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 17 2001.

G.R. No. 143802 (Reynolan T. Sales vs. Sandiganbayan [4 th Division], Ombudsman, People of the Philippines and Thelma Benemerito.)

Mayor Reynolan T. Sales, as lone petitioner, filed a special civil action for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with prayer for the issuance of a TRO seeking to enjoin the issuance by the Sandiganbayan of a warrant of arrest in Criminal Case No. 26115 filed against him and four others. Petitioner contended, inter alia, that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in relying on an incomplete preliminary investigation conducted by the Ombudsman and in failing to make its own independent determination of probable cause. The petition was initially dismissed on July 26, 2000. However, the Court, on August 28, 2000, reconsidered the dismissal and reinstated the petition. On August 30, 2000, the Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the implementation of the Sandiganbayan's Resolution dated July 13, 2000.

Private respondent now comes to this Court seeking a clarification as to whether or not the aforesaid TRO issued in favor of petitioner Sales should likewise apply to his four co-accused who neither filed a petition with this Court nor joined Mayor Sales in his petition.

The People countered that the language of the July 26, 2000 Resolution of this Court is specific; it refers only to petitioner Sales. Hence, it cannot extend to the other four accused. They added that since the other accused did not appeal or join in the petition, they are not entitled to any affirmative relief. Petitioner, on the other hand, invoking Rule 122, Section 11(a), of the Rules of Court, insists that the TRO is applicable to his four co-accused.

Rule 122, Section 11 (a) provides -

"An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter."

Otherwise put, the foregoing rule states that where the decision of the appellate court is beneficial and applicable to one or some of the accused who did not appeal, said decision should apply to them as well. Under the rules on statutory construction, penal laws, rules, and statutes should be liberally interpreted in favor of the accused. Accordingly, the mode of seeking relief a higher court under Rule 122, Section 11 (a), insofar as the beneficial effects thereof to an accused who did not ask relief is concerned, should not be strictly construed; and should not be limited only to "appeals" as stated in Section 11(a). Thus, in Adorio v. Bersamin (273 SCRA 217 [1997]), the Court, in a contempt case brought before this Court via a special civil action for certiorari, extended the benefit of the reduced penalty to one who did not seek relief from the Court, notwithstanding the fact that the mode of relief availed of therein was not an appeal but a special civil action under Rule 65.

Furthermore, a careful scrutiny of the TRO reveals that what is being enjoined therein is the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan dated July 13, 2000, which, in turn, denied the Motion to Defer Issuance of Warrant of Arrest filed by four accused, namely, Reynolan T. Sales, Alfonso Cariaga, William S. Quiamas and Eduardo Lorenzo. In the same Resolution, the Sandiganbayan ordered the issuance of a warrant for the arrest of all five accused: Reynolan T. Sales, Alfonso Cariaga, William S. Quiamas, Celso A. Ragudo and Eduardo Lorenzo. Therefore, the Order restraining the implementation of the assailed Resolution in its entirety and without qualification would have to include an injunction against the issuance of warrants for the arrest of the other four accused.

ACCORDINGLY, the TRO issued by the Court on August 30, 2000, should likewise inure to the benefit of the four other accused who are identically situated as petitioner, namely, Alfonso Carriaga, William S. Quiamas, Celso A. Ragudo and Eduardo Lorenzo.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE