SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. Nos. 204241-42. November 14, 2016.]
AQUILINA B. GRANADA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 14 November 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. Nos. 204241-42 — Aquilina B. Granada, petitioner, v. People of the Philippines, respondent.
Records show that petitioner Aquilina B. Granada and her co-accused Venancio Nava (Nava) failed to appear during the promulgation of judgment by the Sandiganbayan despite due notice. Accordingly, the Sandiganbayan issued an Order on the same day for its judgment of conviction to be recorded in its Criminal Docket and copies be sent to the accused at their last known address on record and/or their counsel. Thereafter, petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before this Court.
Section 6, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides as follows:
In case the accused fails to appear at the scheduled date of promulgation of judgment despite notice, the promulgation shall be made by recording the judgment in the criminal docket and serving him a copy thereof at his last known address or thru his counsel.
If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to appear was without justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies available in these Rules against the judgment and the court shall order his arrest. Within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of judgment however, the accused may surrender and file a motion for leave of court to avail of these remedies. He shall state the reasons for his absence at the scheduled promulgation and if he proves that his absence was for a justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail of said remedies within fifteen (15) days from notice. DETACa
The Rules of Court provides measures to make promulgation in absentia a formal and solemn act so that the absent accused, wherever he may be, can be notified of the judgment rendered against him. The sentence imposed by the trial court cannot be served in the absence of the accused. Hence, all means of notification must be done to let the absent accused know of the judgment of the court. And the means provided by the Rules are: (1) the act of giving notice to all persons or the act of recording or registering the judgment in the criminal docket; and (2) the act of serving a copy thereof upon the accused (at his last known address) or his counsel. In a scenario where the whereabouts of the accused are unknown (as when he is at large), the recording satisfies the requirement of notifying the accused of the decision wherever he may be.
Thus, by failing to appear during the scheduled promulgation of judgment despite due notice, petitioner's remedy should have been to surrender before the Sandiganbayan and file a motion for leave of court to file an appeal stating justifiable grounds for her non-appearance. Petitioner failed to avail of this remedy hence her right to appeal was deemed waived or foreclosed. Otherwise stated, the filing of a petition for review was not proper.
Moreover, raising her justifications for failing to attend said promulgation in the course of the appeal does not cure the procedural infirmity. Appeal is a statutory privilege that may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. 1 The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Thus, petitioner's failure to comply with this remedial mandate results in her loss of standing to seek an appellate review of her conviction.
Even if we disregard the procedural infirmity, the appeal must still fail. It is worthy to note that the issues raised in the Petition for Review on Certiorari are factual. Whether the prosecution's evidence proved the guilt of petitioner beyond reasonable doubt, whether the presumption of innocence was properly accorded her, whether the evidence was sufficient to support a charge of conspiracy, or whether the defense of good faith was correctly appreciated, are all, in varying degrees, questions of fact. Factual findings are not reviewable under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Only questions of law may be raised in appeal from the Sandiganbayan. Moreover, factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are accorded great weight, subject to exceptions that do not exist in these cases.
A review of the substantive issues will neither result in a reversal of Sandiganbayan's Decision. The prosecution successfully established that petitioner committed two counts of violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019 which has the following elements: (1) accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions; (2) he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence; (3) his action caused undue injury to any party, including the Government, or give any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of his function. Petitioner, a public officer, was discharging her official function while engaging in anomalous transactions in conspiracy with her co-accused. The prosecution presented certifications from school officials that five school buildings were never built and that the construction of 13 more buildings were not completed. Petitioner neither assailed these certifications nor presented contradictory evidence. Despite failure to construct or complete the school buildings, disbursement vouchers, delivery receipts and official receipts showed that petitioner authorized full payments, thereby resulting in damage and prejudice to the Government.
The prosecution ably established that petitioner acted in conspiracy with her co-accused Nava. She was the Chairperson of the Acceptance and Inspection Committee of the school building project. Napoleon Nocom Ramos (Ramos) was the Supply Officer tasked with the preparation of the Inspection Report governing acquisition. In this case, petitioner came to him with delivery receipts, certificates of acceptance, disbursement vouchers, and requisition vouchers for his signature. Petitioner told him not to worry because she had already signed the documents together with co-accused Nava, who was the head of the project and actively participated in the same. On this assurance, Ramos affixed his signature even if he was supposed to be the first person to sign the documents. However, he found out that no school buildings were constructed while others were unfinished. He confronted petitioner but was told that there was no cause for concern. The acts of petitioner and Nava showed cooperation in achieving a common objective that is prejudicial to the interest of the Government.
The Sandiganbayan's award of civil liability in favor of the Government which suffered undue injury is proper.
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing considerations, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Sandiganbayan is directed to cause the arrest of petitioner and to submit a report to this Court within 10 days. aDSIHc
SO ORDERED. (Mendoza, J., on official leave from November 8-15, 2016 per Resolution dated January 26, 2016 in A.M. No. 07-11-02-SC under the 2016 Wellness Program)."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Villena v. People, 656 Phil. 127, 137 (2011).