April 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > April 2007 Resolutions >
[G.R. Nos. 169769-71 : April 16, 2007] YOLANDA GALEZA, VICTOR APOSTOL, AND ARNO MADRIGAL VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND HON. SANDIGANBAYAN :
[G.R. Nos. 169769-71 : April 16, 2007]
YOLANDA GALEZA, VICTOR APOSTOL, AND ARNO MADRIGAL VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND HON. SANDIGANBAYAN
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of the Third Division of this Court dated 16 APRIL 2007
Resolution
G.R. Nos. 169769-71 (Yolanda Galeza, Victor Apostol, and Arno Madrigal vs. People of the Philippines and Hon. Sandiganbayan)
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari, docketed as G.R. Nos. 169769-71. filed by petitioners Yolanda T. Galeza, Victor S. Apostol and Arno S. Madrigal assailing the July 20, 2005 Decision[1] and the September 20, 2005 Resolution[2] of the Sandiganbayan.
Three criminal informations (Criminal Case Nos. 25088, 25089 and 25202) were filed charging Municipal Mayor Cesar B. Sulong, Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator Arno S. Madrigal, Senior Revenue Collection Officer Lourdes Lampayan, Municipal Treasurer Yolanda T. Galeza, and Municipal Government Operation Officer Victor S. Apostol, all of Lapuyan, Zamboanga del Sur, with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, in connection with the Lapuyan River Control Project.. Except for Lourdes Lampayan, all of the accused were found guilty by the Sandiganbayan in a Decision rendered on July 20, 2005. The subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied with finality in the Resolution dated September 20, 2005
In the instant petition, petitioners allege the following:
The petition is bereft of merit.
Petitioners' contention, that they should be acquitted on the ground that they were not identified in court by the prosecution, is untenable. This issue was settled during the pre-trial of the case where the parties agreed that the accused on trial are the herein petitioners, among others. They were, in fact, specifically described as officers of the Municipality of Lapuyan, Zamboanga del Sur. By their admission that they are the accused in the criminal informations, the prosecution was thus relieved of the burden of identifying them in court as the malefactors. Throughout the proceedings, petitioners never claimed that their admission was an error; nor was it raised as a matter of defense.
Clearly, petitioners are seeking a review of the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan, which cannot be done in view of the limited scope of review under Rule 45 and the absence of clear showing that the anti-graft court overlooked questions of substance. It is a well-entrenched rule that factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are conclusive upon this Court, except where: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken; (3) there is a grave abuse of discretion; and (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts and the findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.[4] None of these exceptions obtain in the instant case.
ACCORDINGLY, finding no reversible error in the challenged decision and resolution of the Sandiganbayan, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
G.R. Nos. 169769-71 (Yolanda Galeza, Victor Apostol, and Arno Madrigal vs. People of the Philippines and Hon. Sandiganbayan)
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari, docketed as G.R. Nos. 169769-71. filed by petitioners Yolanda T. Galeza, Victor S. Apostol and Arno S. Madrigal assailing the July 20, 2005 Decision[1] and the September 20, 2005 Resolution[2] of the Sandiganbayan.
Three criminal informations (Criminal Case Nos. 25088, 25089 and 25202) were filed charging Municipal Mayor Cesar B. Sulong, Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator Arno S. Madrigal, Senior Revenue Collection Officer Lourdes Lampayan, Municipal Treasurer Yolanda T. Galeza, and Municipal Government Operation Officer Victor S. Apostol, all of Lapuyan, Zamboanga del Sur, with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, in connection with the Lapuyan River Control Project.. Except for Lourdes Lampayan, all of the accused were found guilty by the Sandiganbayan in a Decision rendered on July 20, 2005. The subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied with finality in the Resolution dated September 20, 2005
In the instant petition, petitioners allege the following:
The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) filed its Comment and petitioners filed their Reply thereto.
- THE COURT A QUO CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT ACCUSED/PETITIONERS WERE PROPERLY IDENTIFIED DESPITE THE FACT THAT NONE OF THE WITNESSES FOR THE PROSECUTION POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED THEM AS THE PERSON ACCUSED DURING THE JOINT TRIAL ON THE MERITS OF ALL THE CASES[;] HENCE THE IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
- THE COURT A QUO GAVE UNDUE LEGAL CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION ON THE STIPULATION OF FACT ENTERED INTO AT PRE-TRIAL TO RULE ON THE POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION OF THE PETITIONERS AS THE PERSONS NAMED AS ACCUSED IN THE INFORMATION WHEN NO SUCH CLEAR ADMISSION WAS EVER MADE; AND FURTHER RULED TO BE ADMISSIBLE AGAINST HEREIN PETITIONERS.[3]
The petition is bereft of merit.
Petitioners' contention, that they should be acquitted on the ground that they were not identified in court by the prosecution, is untenable. This issue was settled during the pre-trial of the case where the parties agreed that the accused on trial are the herein petitioners, among others. They were, in fact, specifically described as officers of the Municipality of Lapuyan, Zamboanga del Sur. By their admission that they are the accused in the criminal informations, the prosecution was thus relieved of the burden of identifying them in court as the malefactors. Throughout the proceedings, petitioners never claimed that their admission was an error; nor was it raised as a matter of defense.
Clearly, petitioners are seeking a review of the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan, which cannot be done in view of the limited scope of review under Rule 45 and the absence of clear showing that the anti-graft court overlooked questions of substance. It is a well-entrenched rule that factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are conclusive upon this Court, except where: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken; (3) there is a grave abuse of discretion; and (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts and the findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.[4] None of these exceptions obtain in the instant case.
ACCORDINGLY, finding no reversible error in the challenged decision and resolution of the Sandiganbayan, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Rodolfo A. Ponferrada with Associate Justices Gregory S. Ong and Jose R. Hernandez concurring.
[2] Rollo, pp. 132-152.
[3] Id., at 21-22.
[4] Suller v. Sandiganbayan, 454 Phil. 704, 712-713 (2003).
