republic of the philippines...

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

~anoiBanha~anQuezon City

FIRST DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CASE NO. S8-10-CRM-0236Plaintiff, For: Violation of Sec. 3 (e), RA 3019

- versus -Present:

CYNTHIA G. MORE NO,ET AL.,

Promulgated on:

. JAN 09 1017 ~x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _T - - - - - - - - -x

DE LA CRUZ, J.

DE LA CRUZ, J., Chairperson

MUSNGI*, J.CRUZ**, JJ.Accused.

RESOLUTION

This resolves the following:

1. Accused Moreno's Petition for Relief from Judgment, datedOctober 27,2016;

2. Petition for Relief from Judgment, October 21, 2016, ofaccused Manguilimotan, Villegas, Flordeliza, Ababon, Lim, Celisand Nengasca (Manguilimotan, et al.):

3. The prosecution's Consolidated CommenVOpposition (Tothe Petitions for Relief from Judgment), dated November 29, 2016;and

4. Consolidated Reply, dated December 12, 2016 of all theaccused.

In a Decision promulgated on June 5, 2014, the Courtconvicted all the accused for violation of Section 3(e) of RepublicAct No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-graft and Corrupt

'Sitting as Special Member of the First Division as per Administrative Order No, 204-2016, dated June 29, 2016."Sitting as Special Member of the First Division as per Administrative Order No. 327-2016, dated November 25, 2016.

RESOLUTIONpp vs. Cynthia G. Moreno, et al.Crim. Case No. SB-10-CRM-0236

of6

)(- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - )(

The Court's June 5, 2014 Decision and August 28, 2014Resolution became final and executory on February 2, 2016.Subsequently, on July 11, 2016, the Supreme Court issued aResolution" expunging from the records the accused's secondmotion for reconsideration, among others.

Practices Act. The accused's motion for reconsideration of thedecision was denied in a Resolution, dated August 28, 2014. Theyappealed both the said decision and resolution to the SupremeCourt in a petition for review on certiorari, but was denied in aResolution issued on December 1, 2014.1 They filed a motion forreconsideration of the dismissal, but the Supreme Court likewisedenied with finality the said motion in a Resolution, dated November9, 2015.2 In another Resolution, dated January 25, 2016, theSupreme Court noted without action the pleadings filed by theaccused.'

In the petitions for relief from judgment separately filed byaccused Moreno and Maguilimotan, et al., but containing similarissues and arguments, they seek to annul, reverse and set aside theCourt's June 5, 2014 Decision on the following grounds:

1. They were deprived of their right to appeal by reason of thegross negligence of their counsel;

2. They were effectively deprived of their constitutional right tobe heard when their counsel unjustifiably refused to presentwitnesses in support of their defense; and

3. The palpable and gross negligence of their counsel resultedin their conviction.

In addition, the accused argue that this Court erred inconcluding that they acted with evident bad faith, manifest partiality,and gross inexcusable negligence in procuring the composite panelsfrom DIIC.

In its consolidated comment/opposition, the prosecutionopposes the petitions for relief for the following reasons:

1 Record, Vol. IV, p. 31521d., p. 4273 Id., pp. 435-4364Id., p. 439


0'6

)(- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - )(

1. The Petitions for Relief from Judgment were filed out oftime;

2. Accused Moreno is guilty of forum-shopping;

3. A petition for relief from judgment is not an availableremedy in the Sandiganbayan, citing the case of Julio Purcon, Jr. v.MRM Phils., Inc. (G.R. No. 182718, September 26,2008);5 and

4. The accused were not deprived of their right to appeal andto be heard by reason of the gross negligence of their counsel.Neither was their conviction a result of the gross and palpablenegligence of their counsel.

In their consolidated reply, the accused posit that the Purconcase is not at all in all-fours to the present case, as Purcon is a laborcase involving money claims. Besides, the dismissal of the petitionfor relief from judgment was due to the fact that it was filed beforethe Supreme Court which issued the denial of the petition for review,subject of the petition for relief from judgment.

The accused further advance that the phrase "any court" inSection 1, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court refers to "courts of origin",including the Sandiganbayan. In fact, in the case of Argana v.Republic of the Philippines,6 the Supreme Court upheld theSandiganbayan which treated a motion to rescind as a petition forrelief from judgment.

The accused reiterate the arguments in their petitions for reliefin support of their claim that their counsels were grossly negligent,which warrant a re-opening of trial to allow them to presentevidence. The accused maintain that jurisprudence allowspresentation of evidence even after a decision has become final andexecutory in cases like theirs.

Lastly, accused Moreno denies that she is guilty of forum-shopping, reasoning that the Omnibus Motion with the SupremeCourt referred to by the prosecution was filed by another counseland before accused Moreno received the notice of entry of

5 566 SCRA 6456443 SCRA 184


of6

)(- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - )(

judgment. Besides, it was already rendered as a mere scrap ofpaper by the Supreme Court's resolution that it would not allowfurther pleadings.

The petition is bereft of merit.

Sections 1 and 3 of Rule 38 of the Rules of Court on reliefsfrom judgments, orders, or other proceedings provide:

SEC. 1. Petition for relief from judgment, order, or otherproceedings.--When a judgment or final order is entered, or anyother proceedings is thereafter taken against a party in any courtthrough fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, hemay file a petition in such court and in the same case praying thatthe judgment, order or other proceeding be set aside.

SEC. 3. Time for filing petition; contents andverification.-A petition provided for in either of the precedingsections of this Rule must be verified, filed within sixty (60) daysafter the petitioner learns of the judgment, final order, or otherproceeding to be set aside, and not more than six (6) months aftersuch judgment or final order was entered, or such proceeding wastaken; and must be accompanied with affidavits showing thefraud, accident, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence reliedupon, and the facts constituting the petitioner's good andsubstantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be.

In a Resolution, dated November 9, 2015, the Supreme Courtdenied the accused's motion for reconsideration of the denial oftheir petition for review on certiorari, which resolution the accusedreceived on March 8, 2016. The eo" day from receipt of the denialwas on May 7,2016.

The June 5, 2014 Decision and August 28,2014 Resolution ofthis Court became final and executory, and was entered in the bookof entries of judgment of the Supreme Court on February 2, 2016 ..Thus, the 6-month period under the Rules ended on August 2,2016.

Prescinding from the foregoing material dates, it is clear thatwhen the accused filed the present petitions for relief with this Courton October 28, 2016, the periods set by Rule 38 to file a petition forrelief had already lapsed. Even if the Court considers the accused'ssubmission that the 60-day period should be reckoned from theirreceipt on August 25, 2016 of the Supreme Court's Resolution,

)(- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - )(


of6

dated July 11, 2016, expunging from the records their secondmotion for reconsideration, still, the petitions for relief were belatedlyfiled because the 60th day from August 25, 2016 fell on October 24,2016.

It should be noted that the 60-day period from knowledgeof the decision, and the 6-month period from entry of judgment,are both inextendible and uninterruptible. We have also time andagain held that because relief from a final and executory judgmentis really more of an exception than a rule due to its equitablecharacter and nature, strict compliance with these periods, whichare definitely jurisdictional, must always be observed."

At any rate, even if the Court would accord the accused aliberal application of the periods provided under Rule 38, thepetitions must, nonetheless, fail. To re-open the case would betantamount to a review of the evaluation and the final verdict of theSupreme Court upholding the conviction of the accused. It is clearfrom the Supreme Court's Resolution, December 1, 2014, that thedismissal of the accused's petition for certiorari was not based onmere technicality only but on the merits as well. Thus:

x x x. Pursuant to Rule 45 and other related provisions of the1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, governing appeals bycertiorari to the Supreme Court, only petitions which areaccompanied by or comply strictly with the requirements specifiedtherein shall be entertained. On the basis thereof, the Courtresolves to DENY the petition for review on certiorari assailing theDecision dated 5 June 2014 and Resolution dated 28 August 2014of the Sandiganbayan in S8-10-CRM-0236, for lack of a verifiedstatement of material date of receipt of the assailed decision inaccordance with Sections 4(b) and 5, Rule 45 in relation to Section5(d), Rule 56 of the Rules.

In any event, the petition failed to sufficiently show anyreversible error in the assailed judgment to warrant theexercise by this Court of its discretionary appellatejurisdiction, in this case. x x x. (emphasis supplied)

WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, the separatepetitions for relief from judgment of accused Moreno and accusedManguilimotan, Villegas, Flordeliza, Ababon, Lim, Celis andNengasca are hereby ENIED for lack of merit.

7 Spouses Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 530 SeRA 468, 475


of6

)(- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - )(

SO ORDERED.

EFREN ~ r;). LA CRUZChairpers~~~.:s;6ciate Justice

WE CONCUR:

MICHAEL .~~~~Associate Justi e

republic of the philippines...

Documents