FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 215517. April 18, 2018.]
EUGENIO AZANSA, LYNDA ACBANGIN, and ISABELITA BELARMINO, petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 18, 2018, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 215517 — EUGENIO AZANSA, LYNDA ACBANGIN, and ISABELITA BELARMINO, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
In two separate Informations both dated April 29, 2003, filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 25, Manila, and docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 03-215274-75, herein petitioners Lynda Acbangin (Acbangin), Eugenio Azansa (Azansa), and Isabelita Belarmino (Belarmino) along with Mario Del Rosario (Del Rosario) 1 and Eduardo Lugto (Lugto), 2 were charged with the crime of falsification by public officer of public/official document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, 3 as amended, respectively, allegedly committed as follows:
For Criminal Case No. 03-215274:
That on or about the period March 25, 1999 to April 8, 1999, in the City of Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused then low ranking barangay officials, namely: Mario del Rosario, the Barangay Chairman, Isabelita Belarmino, the Barangay Treasurer, and Barangay Kagawads Eduardo Lugtu, Eugenio Azansa and Lynda Acbangin, all of Barangay 121, Zone 9, Tondo, Manila, conspiring and confederating with each other, committing the crime herein charged in relation to their duties as such and taking advantage of their official functions through manifest partiality and evident bad faith, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally cause undue injury to the government by making it appear that there was a canvass conducted to purchase a stainless fire tank trailer of 500 gallons capacity, when actually there was no such canvass made and likewise certifying that such fire tank trailer was purchased and received by them from a supplier known as the 1327 Consulting Services which purportedly offered the lowest price, when in fact what was received was not a stainless fire tank trailer of 500 gallons capacity, as per specifications, but only a galvanized type of sub-standard quality to the damage and prejudice of the government in the amount of P100,000.00, thereby also giving unwarranted benefit to the said 1327 Consulting Services. 4
For Criminal Case No. 03-215275:
That on or about the period March 25, 1999 to April 8, 1999, in the City of Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused then low ranking barangay officials, namely: Mario del Rosario, the Barangay Chairman, Isabelita Belarmino, the Barangay Treasurer, and Barangay Kagawads Eduardo Lugtu, Eugenio Azansa and Lynda Acbangin, all of Barangay 121, Zone 9, Tondo, Manila, taking advantage of their positions and committing the offense in relation to their office, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously make false statements in a narration of facts, the truth of which they were legally bound to disclose, by indicating in the Canvass and Quotation of Prices that a canvass was made from Rolan Jane Enterprises and Sunshine Enterprises making it appear that the said firms were each selling one unit of stainless fire tank trailer of 500 gallons capacity, for P105,000.00 and P110,000.00, respectively, when in truth and in fact, as the accused very well know that they did not conduct such canvass but rather made it appear that another supplier, the 1327 Consulting Services was selling the same item at the price of only P100,000.00 so they could and in fact did purchase it from the latter, to the prejudice of public interest. 5
As summarized by the Court of Appeals, the facts are as follows:
Armando dela Cruz, a former councilor of Barangay 121, Zone 9, District 1, Tondo, Manila, testified that sometime in 1999, he, along with all the accused-appellants, requested for the purchase of a stainless steel fire tank trailer, as reflected in a Purchase Request, dated March 29, 1999. Thus, Barangay Resolution No. 005, Series of 1999 was promulgated x x x.
xxx xxx xxx
The x x x resolution was signed by accused Mario del Rosario, as Barangay Captain, and accused Eduardo Lugtu, accused-appellants Eugenio Azansa, and Lynda Acbangin, complainants Armando dela Cruz and Ramil Mallari, in their capacity as Barangay Kagawads x x x. As a result, a Committee on Canvass was created on March 24, 1999, with three (3) members, namely accused-appellants Lugtu, Azansa and Acbangin, in charge of "the canvassing of the prices of materials and supplies needed in the Barangay Projects."
Pursuant to the same, accused-appellant Isabelita Belarmino executed a Certificate of Availability of Funds, dated March 24, 1999 x x x.
xxx xxx xxx
An Invitation to Bid was then issued by Barangay Chairman Del Rosario x x x.
xxx xxx xxx
Because no bid was submitted to the Committee, accused-appellants Lugtu, Azansa and Belarmino executed a Justification, which reads:
'This will certify that the Committee on Canvas (sic) of this Barangay has posted three (3) copies of invitation to bid in three (3) conspicuous place (sic) in Brgy. 121 Zone 9, District 1, relative to:
The purchase of Supplies & Materials costing P100,000.00 for items is urgently necessary in the enforcement of Sports Dev't Prog. & Capital Outlay in the Barangay community.
It is also certified that the invitation to bid calls for the tendered [bid] to be opened by the committee (sic) on Canvas (sic) at the Barangay Hall at 10:00 a.m. o'clock and date, no bid has been submitted to the Committee on Canvas (sic); hence, there was release of bidding and the purchase was made thru personal canvass.
That the canvasses (sic) prices was (sic) recommended by the Committee on Awards.'
Based on the Canvass Sheets, dated March 25, 1999, 1327 Consulting Services had the lowest cost for the purchase price of a stainless steel fire tank in the amount of P100,000.00, as opposed to Rolan Jane Enterprises and Sunshine Enterprises, which offered the amounts of P105,000.00 and P110,00.00, respectively. Thus, on the same day, Resolution No. 007 was passed by the Barangay Council, declaring 1327 Consulting Services as the supplier of the stainless steel fire tank, having offered the lowest price for the same.
A Purchase Order was also prepared by accused-appellant Isabelita Belarmino, as Barangay Treasurer and in return, 1327 Consulting Services issued a sales invoice, dated April 7, 1999, in favor of Isabelita Belarmino. The fire tank was delivered on April 8, 1999, as shown in a Certificate of Delivery and Acceptance signed by Barangay Chairman Del Rosario, Kagawad Lugtu and Treasurer Belarmino x x x.
xxx xxx xxx
Subsequently, Resolution No. 008, Series of 1999 created a Committee on Inspection, composed of Noel Bas and accused-appellants Lugtu and Acbangin.
Accused Del Rosario then sent a Request for Obligation of Allotment, dated April 12, 1999, to the Office of the City Accountant, requesting the total amount of P130,000.00, which included the purchase price of P100,000.00 for the fire tank. The same was endorsed by the Acting Assistant Director of the Barangay [Fire] Bureau which forwarded the payment vouchers in favor of 1327 Consulting Services to the City of Accountant.
However, according to Dela Cruz and Ramil Mallari, the tank that was delivered to the Barangay Hall was not made of stainless steel but of galvanized iron, contrary and sub-standard to that stated in the Purchase Order and Request for Obligation of Allotment. Suspicious of the transaction, they conducted their own investigation and discovered that Rolan Jane Enterprises (Rolan Jane) had been closed for a considerable period of time while the owner of Sunshine Enterprises (Sunshine), Juanity Sy, informed dela Cruz that it had never participated in any bidding for barangay projects. Further inquiry also led to the information that a galvanized iron tank only cost P35,000.00 while one made of stainless steel was worth P100,000.00. Dela Cruz and Mallari then brought the matter to the attention of Barangay Chairman Mario del Rosario who informed them that he would talk to the contractor. However, approximately one (1) year had passed before del Rosario took action and the fire tank was allegedly never replaced. Dela Cruz and Mallari then informed del Rosario that if no replacement was made, they were going to file a case against the latter, which they later did when they executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay, dated June 3, 2002, narrating their version of the incidents leading to the instant case, before the Office of the Ombudsman.
The prosecution also presented the testimony of Nathaniel Aquino, a DILG statistician who inspected the fire-fighting equipment of the barangay and concluded that the inspected equipment was in violation of the specification embodied in the Purchase Order prepared by the barangay x x x.
xxx xxx xxx
The defense, meanwhile, offered the testimony of accused Mario del Rosario who, admitted to knowing complainants dela Cruz and Mallari. According to del Rosario, both complainants were former barangay kagawads who served with him and Mallari was the opposing candidate for the position of barangay chairman of Barangay 121, Zone 9, District 1, Tondo, Manila during the 2002 elections, in which the latter lost.
Del Rosario confirmed that the fire tank to be purchased was one made of stainless steel and that the same quality was purchased, based on an ocular inspection. When asked about the receipt of a galvanized iron fire tank, del Rosario explained:
Q: When was it delivered?
A: Maybe year 2000.
Q: With regard to the purchase of the fire-fighting equipment, was it made in accordance with the specifications embodied in the Purchase Order?
A: The contractor lends (sic) us a galvanized fire tank in the mean time (sic).
Q: The purchase was not in accordance with the specifications embodied in the Purchase Order?
A: Initially, the fire tank was not in accordance with the specifications but later on it was changed into a stainless.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Mr. Del Rosario, the pictures which were taken as regards the fire-fighting equipment of Barangay 121, Zone 9, District 1, Tondo, Manila are not the same fire-fighting equipment which was the subject of inspection of Mr. Nathaniel Aquino?
A: Not the same. The previous pictures were in the possession of Atty. Domingo so we took another pictures (sic).
Q: Those pictures were taken after Nathaniel Aquino conducted an ocular inspection on the subject equipment?
A: Yes madam.
Accused-appellant Eugenio Azansa was also presented as a witness to corroborate the statements of del Rosario x x x. 6 [Underscoring supplied.]
The Regional Trial Court Decision
In its Decision dated July 27, 2011, the RTC found the five accused, namely, herein petitioners Acbangin, Azansa and Belarmino (Acbangin, et al.), along with Del Rosario and Lugto, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. The dispositive portion thereof reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds the accused MARIO DEL ROSARIO, ISABELITA BELARMINO, EUGENIO AZANSA, EDUARDO LUGTO, and LYDIA ACBANGIN GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as amended, and are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for one (1) year to two (2) years and perpetual disqualification from public office.
Likewise, finding all the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Falsification of Public/Official Documents, defined and penalized under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, the Court hereby sentences them to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum imprisonment to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum imprisonment. No costs. 7
The prosecution and the accused moved for reconsideration of the above-quoted decision. Herein petitioners Acbangin, et al., including Del Rosario, all prayed for the reversal of their conviction. On the other hand, the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman), representing the People of the Philippines (People), urged the trial court to reexamine the penalty imposed for violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019, pursuant to Section 9 of the said law, which states that the appropriate penalty of the violation should not be less than six years and one month nor more than fifteen years imprisonment, and perpetual disqualification from public office.
In a Resolution dated January 6, 2012, the RTC resolved the motions for reconsideration in this wise:
WHEREFORE, considering the foregoing, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the accused is DENIED for lack of merit.
Meanwhile, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Office of the Ombudsman is GRANTED. Having found all the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, they are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of six (6) years and one (1) month as minimum imprisonment to ten (10) years as maximum imprisonment. 8
The Court of Appeals Decision
In a Decision promulgated on April 1, 2014, the Court of Appeals partly reversed and partly modified the decision and resolution of the RTC, the fallo of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the Decision, dated July 27, 2011, rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 25, in Criminal Case No. 03-215274-75, is MODIFIED insofar as the surviving accused-appellants are concerned, as follows:
1) As to Criminal Case No. 03-21527[5] for Violation of Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, accused-appellants ISABELITA BELARMINO, EUGENIO AZANSA and LYDIA ACBANGIN are hereby ACQUITTED; and
2) As to Criminal Case No. 03-215274 for Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, accused-appellants ISABELITA BELARMINO, EUGENIO AZANSA and LYDIA ACBANGIN are found GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT and sentenced to suffer the penalty of one (1) year to two (2) years imprisonment and perpetual disqualification from public office. 9
Petitioners Acbangin, et al.'s, subsequent motion for partial reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated November 12, 2014.
Hence, petitioners Acbangin, et al., sought recourse with the Court through the present action, asserting that their guilt has not been established beyond reasonable doubt with respect to their supposed violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended.
The Ruling of the Court
The Court cannot entertain this appeal.
Upon the conviction of petitioners Acbangin, et al., their remedy should have been to appeal the decision and resolution of the RTC to the Sandiganbayan. Paragraph 3, Section 4 (c) of Republic Act (RA) No. 8249 10 entitled, "AN ACT FURTHER DEFINING THE JURISDICTION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1606, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," which took effect on February 23, 1997, categorically provides, viz.:
SECTION 4. Section of the same decree is hereby further amended to read as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.
In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to Salary Grade '27' or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or military and PNP officers mentioned above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit trial court, as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.
The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or order of regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided.' (Emphasis supplied.)
From the foregoing provision, clearly, decisions of regional trial courts — convicting an accused who occupy a position lower than that with salary grade 27 or those not otherwise covered by the enumeration of certain public officers in Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1606 as amended by R.A. No. 8249 — are to be appealed exclusively to the Sandiganbayan. 11
It has been held repeatedly that the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process, but merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. 12 The party who seeks to avail himself of the same must comply with the requirements of the rules, failing in which the right to appeal is lost. 13
In this case, instead of appealing their conviction to the Sandiganbayan, petitioners Acbangin, et al., erroneously filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals, in utter disregard of Paragraph 3, Section 4 (c) of R.A. No. 8249. The filing of the erroneous appeal did not toll the running of the period for petitioners Acbangin, et al., to perfect their appeal to the Sandiganbayan. Therefore, the assailed Decision and Resolution dated July 27, 2011 and January 1, 2012, respectively, of the RTC convicting them of violating Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, and Paragraph 4, Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code have become final and executory.
The appeal by herein petitioners Acbangin, et al., should have been dismissed by the Court of Appeals given that it had no jurisdiction to review the assailed decision and resolution of the RTC. 14 And because the decision of the RTC convicting them has long become final and executory, the same can no longer be altered or modified, 15 even if modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law. 16 Nothing is more settled in law than that when a judgment becomes final and executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable. 17 The reason is grounded on the fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional error, the judgments or orders of courts must be final at some definite date fixed by law. Once a judgment has become final and executory, the issues there should be laid to rest. 18
In view of the foregoing, there is no longer any need to discuss the merits of the case.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution dated July 27, 2011 and January 6, 2012, respectively, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, Manila in Criminal Case Nos. 03-215274-75, finding petitioners Lynda Acbangin, Eugenio Azansa and Isabelita Belarmino GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019, otherwise known as the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act," as amended, and Paragraph 4 of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code is declared FINAL and EXECUTORY.
SO ORDERED." SERENO, CJ., on leave; PERALTA, J., additional member per Raffle dated February 26, 2018 vice JARDELEZA, J.; GESMUNDO, J., additional member per Raffle dated February 28, 2018 vice TIJAM, J.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Accused Del Rosario died on February 7, 2012, prior to the promulgation of the Decision of the Court of Appeals, thus, the Court of Appeals resolved to dismiss the criminal cases against him and accused Lugto in a Resolution dated January 15, 2013; CA rollo, p. 65.
2. Accused Lugto died on February 18, 2001, before the latter could be arraigned; CA rollo, p. 64.
3. Otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
4. Records (Vol. I), pp. 2-3.
5.Id. at 145-146.
6.Rollo, pp. 100-108.
7.Id. at 58.
8. Records (Vol. II), p. 72.
9.Rollo, pp. 113-114.
10. Prior to its amendment by RA No. 10660 entitled "AN ACT STRENGTHENING FURTHER THE FUNCTIONAL AND STRUCTURAL ORGANIZATION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN, FURTHER AMENDING PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1606, AS AMENDED, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR," which took effect on April 16, 2015.
11.Estarija v. People, 619 Phil. 457, 462-463 (2009).
12.Quileste v. People, 599 Phil. 117, 122 (2009).
13.Estarija v. People, supra note 11 at 463.
14.Torres v. People, 672 Phil. 142, 149 (2011), citing Balaba v. People, 610 Phil. 623, 627 (2009).
15.Eastland Construction and Development Corporation v. Mortel, 520 Phil. 76, 91 (2006).
16.Nuñal v. Court of Appeals, 293 Phil. 28, 35 (1993).
17.Chan-Tan v. Tan, 627 Phil. 409, 423 (2010).
18.Enriquez v. Court of Appeals, 279 Phil. 539, 544 (1991).