Sabio v. Sandiganbayan (4th Division)

FIRST DIVISION1

[G.R. No. 253260. December 7, 2021.]

CAMILO LOYOLA SABIO,petitioner, vs. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (4TH DIVISION) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 7, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 253260 —Camilo Loyola Sabio v. Honorable Sandiganbayan (4th Division) and People of the Philippines

ANTECEDENTS

In Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-1234, the Sandiganbayan found petitioner Camilo Loyola Sabio guilty of violation of Section 3 (a) of Republic Act No. 3019 (RA 3019) and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) month, as minimum, up to ten (10) years, as maximum, with perpetual disqualification from holding public office.

On December 23, 2019, petitioner moved to reconsider on ground of double jeopardy. He also acknowledged receipt of the assailed decision on December 19, 2019. 2

Under Resolution 3 dated January 27, 2020, the Sandiganbayan denied the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. It also stressed that the motion for reconsideration was belatedly filed on December 23, 2019. He had fifteen (15) days from the date of promulgation or until December 14, 2019 within which to file his motion for reconsideration. But since December 14, 2019 was a Saturday, the last day to file the motion was on December 16, 2019. Petitioner received the resolution of denial on February 4, 2020.

Then he filed a second motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated January 27, 2020 reiterating that the rule of double jeopardy applies in his case. 4 He argued that his acquittal in Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-1235 bars his conviction in Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-1234 which involved a similar offense.

While his second motion for reconsideration pended, on June 19, 2020, petitioner, through another counsel, filed a supplemental motion, 5 claiming for the first time that there was a defective promulgation of judgment because only the dispositive portion was read to him, sans the statement of facts and law on which the judgment was based contrary to Rule 120, Sec. 1 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner thus, concluded that the period to file the motion for reconsideration should be reckoned from receipt of the judgment and not on the date of its promulgation. The prosecution filed its comment, arguing that the promulgation was valid. It emphasized that petitioner agreed to the reading only of the dispositive portion of Decision dated November 29, 2019 during the promulgation. Thus, the reckoning period for filing the motion for reconsideration should be from the date of promulgation and not from petitioner's receipt of the judgment. 6

By Resolution 7 dated June 25, 2020, the Sandiganbayan denied the second motion for reconsideration on ground that it was a prohibited pleading. Petitioner received the notice of denial on June 30, 2020. 8

On July 6, 2020, petitioner filed an urgent motion to be placed under house arrest or in any government medical facility so he could get treatment for his various medical conditions which could be aggravated if he remained in a detention facility due to COVID-19. 9

Then, on July 10, 2020, petitioner filed his notice of appeal and urgent motion to extricate. 10

Meanwhile, under Resolution 11 dated August 10, 2020, the Sandiganbayan denied petitioner's supplemental motion. The court stressed anew that the motion for reconsideration was belatedly filed and as such did not toll the period of appeal.

In yet another Resolution 12 dated September 14, 2020, the Sandiganbayan also denied petitioner's urgent omnibus motion, notice of appeal, and urgent motion to extricate. It ruled that (1) Sabio had already lost his period to appeal the judgment of conviction, (2) Enrile v. Sandiganbayan cannot be applied to allow his release on bail since he was already convicted and should already start to serve his sentence and, (3) for humanitarian considerations, he is allowed to be confined in a government hospital of his choice for treatment until he is cleared to serve his sentence in a penal facility, considering his medical condition and vulnerability to COVID-19 if placed in a detention facility. But his hospital confinement cannot be credited in the service of his sentence.

Aggrieved, petitioner sought affirmative relief from the Court via Rule 65 to nullify the alleged void judgment of conviction and related resolutions of the Sandiganbayan because (1) his motion for reconsideration was timely filed on December 23, 2019 or within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the assailed decision, (2) the Information failed to allege the crime he was charged with, (3) the prosecution failed to prove the elements of the crime, (4) the mitigating circumstance of old age was not considered in imposing the appropriate penalty, (5) his appeal should not be denied on a mere technicality and, (6) for humanitarian and medical reasons, he should be allowed to either post bail or be detained in his home.

By Resolution 13 dated October 14, 2020, the Court resolved to dismiss the petition for failure to show that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering its assailed dispositions. Too, the verdict of conviction (Decision dated November 29, 2019) had already attained finality for petitioner's failure to timely appeal it.

In his motion for reconsideration, petitioner reiterates his plea to avail of the remedy of certiorari to correct the alleged injustice committed against him, asserting, thus: (1) the fifteen (15)-day period within which to file his motion for reconsideration should be reckoned from his actual receipt of the verdict of conviction and not from its promulgation during which the required statement of facts or law was not read in open court; (2) the Sandiganbayan did not even rule on the issues raised in his supplemental motion, i.e., the Information did not charge an offense, the court failed to appreciate the mitigating circumstance of old age in the imposition of the penalty, and stay his detention pending motion for reconsideration, for humanitarian and medical reasons; (3) in the interest of substantial justice, his appeal should have been given due course, or in the alternative, the verdict of conviction should have been reversed as his alleged act of influencing his brother did not constitute an offense.

In its Comment, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) seeks to deny petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration for alleged lack of merit. It argues that the assailed verdict of conviction had long attained finality and immutability since petitioner failed to timely file his motion for reconsideration.

By way of reply, petitioner repleads his arguments in his motion for reconsideration. He prays anew that he be allowed to post bail or be detained at home so as not to aggravate his failing health and serious physical condition.

OUR RULING

We RECONSIDER.

The fifteen (15)-day period

Section 1, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court requires that the judgment must be in writing and must contain the facts and law upon which it is based, viz.:

Section 1. Judgment definition and form. — Judgment is the adjudication by the court that the accused is guilty or not guilty of the offense charged and the imposition on him of the proper penalty and civil liability, if any. It must be written in the official language, personally and directly prepared by the judge and signed by him and shall contain clearly and distinctly a statement of the facts and the law upon which it is based. (Emphasis supplied)

Further, Section 4, Rule VIII of the 2018 Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan (Internal Rules) ordains that promulgation of judgment shall be done by reading the judgment or sentence in the presence of the accused and any member of the Division which rendered the judgment. In the absence of the accused 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 pursuant to Sec. 6, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Additionally, Section 1, Rule IX of the Internal Rules provides that an accused may file a motion for new trial or reconsideration of a decision or final order within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of judgment or from notice of the final order or judgment.

It is undisputed that petitioner here was present during the promulgation of the verdict of conviction (Decision dated November 29, 2019) where, with his consent, only its dispositive portion was read in open court. He acknowledged receipt of the actual copy of the decision on December 19, 2019.

He filed his motion for reconsideration on December 23, 2019, albeit it was denied by the Sandiganbayan on the ground that it was filed beyond the fifteen ( 15)-day period reckoned from promulgation of the judgment of conviction on November 29, 2019.

To begin with, all accused have the right to be served copy of the judgment for or against them. In cases of conviction, it would only be upon receipt of the full text of the decision that the accused may be fully informed of the factual and legal bases thereof which the accused indispensably need to be able to intelligently and effectively formulate the arguments in support of their motion for reconsideration should they be minded to file one. While the rules provide that the period to file the motion for reconsideration commences to run from the promulgation of judgment, it presupposes that on the same day itself, the accused have likewise been furnished a copy of the decision against them.

Here, records show that petitioner was actually furnished a copy of the decision only on December 19, 2019 and not during the promulgation day itself on November 29, 2019. Consequently, petitioner had until January 3, 2020 within which to file his motion for reconsideration which he did on December 23, 2019 well within the fifteen (15)-day reglementary period.

The Court is very much aware of Neplum, Inc. v. Orbeso, 14People v. Tamani15 and Landicho v. Tan. 16 There, the Court invariably clarified that insofar as the accused are concerned, the period for appeal in case of conviction is counted from the date of promulgation of the decision, not from receipt of the physical copy itself by the accused or their counsel.

And rightly so. For a notice of appeal is merely a brief statement of the intention of the accused to elevate the decision to a higher court. 17 No further discussion is necessary as the issues will be discussed and elaborated in the appeal briefs to be filed much later.

But filing a motion for reconsideration is another story. As stated, the reckoning period for filing it is from receipt of the verdict of conviction for the purpose of enabling the accused to formulate the specific arguments in support of their motion for reconsideration.

Verily, therefore, the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion when it denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration for having been filed out of time. For the court should have reckoned the fifteen (15)-day period not from the promulgation of judgment on November 29, 2019 but from petitioner's receipt of the decision on December 19, 2019. To be sure, when petitioner filed his motion for reconsideration on December 23, 2019, it was well within the reglementary period of fifteen (15) days. Consequently, there is a need to reinstate petitioner's motion for reconsideration and remand it to the Sandiganbayan for resolution.

A convicted person's right to

Bail is either a matter of right or of discretion. It is a matter of right when the offense charged is not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment. On the other hand, upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, bail becomes a matter of discretion. For upon conviction, the presumption of innocence is terminated and accordingly, the constitutional right to bail ends. From then on, the grant of bail is subject to judicial discretion which must be exercised with grave caution and only for strong reasons. 18

Under Section 5, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, when the court imposes the penalty of imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, but not more than twenty (20) years, the accused shall be denied bail, or his or her bail previously granted shall be cancelled when any of the bail-negating circumstances are present, to wit:

(a) That the accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by the circumstance on reiteration;

(b) That the accused is found to have previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or has violated the conditions of his bail without valid justification;

(c) That the accused committed the offense while on probation, parole, or under conditional pardon;

(d) That the circumstances of the accused or his case indicate the probability of flight if released on bail; or

(e) That there is undue risk that during the pendency of the appeal, the accused may commit another crime.

The appellate court may review the resolution of the Regional Trial Court, on motion and with notice to the adverse party.

Thus, the accused shall be denied bail if any of the aforementioned circumstances are present. But if none of the bail negating circumstances are present, the Court may grant bail with extreme caution and only for strong reasons. 19

Petitioner is eighty-five (85) years old and had a stroke. He has been wheelchair bound for years already. 20 Lately, he was diagnosed with community-acquired pneumonia and hypertension. 21 Notably, under Resolution dated September 14, 2020, the Sandiganbayan granted his request for hospital confinement until he is medically cleared to serve his sentence.

As earlier stated, petitioner again implores the Court to consider his present state to allow him to post bail or to be detained in his home so as not to further aggravate his frail health.

We grant petitioner's prayer for bail.

In People v. Canillo-Prospero, 22 the Court granted the request for bail pending appeal by therein accused Abiso and Desedilla who were both found guilty of malversation of public funds and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The Court took into consideration that both were ill and already sixty-five (65) years old. There was no slightest indication that they were flight-risk nor posed the risk of being repeat offenders.

Here, petitioner, all eighty-five (85) years of age is in his twilight and illness laden years. The People itself has not refuted his serious medical condition. There is no indication that he is a flight risk for he is no longer even ambulatory. Nor does he pose a danger of being a repeat offender since he had long ceased to be in government service. His continuous incarceration will not do any good to his already failing health, let alone, to society in general.

WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Reconsideration dated February 2, 2021, VACATES its Resolution dated October 14, 2020, NULLIFIES the Resolutions dated January 27, 2020, June 25, 2020, August 10, 2020 and September 14, 2020 of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-1234, and REINSTATES and REMANDS petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision dated November 29, 2019 for resolution of the Sandiganbayan.

FURTHER, petitioner Camilo Loyola Sabio is ordered PROVISIONALLY RELEASED upon posting a cash bond of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00), unless he is being detained for other lawful cause. The Sandiganbayan is DIRECTED to submit its compliance to the Court within five (5) days from notice.

The Clerk of Court is directed to furnish the Sandiganbayan and the Office of the Ombudsman a copy of this Resolution via personal service.

The Office of the Solicitor General's motion for an extension of twenty (20) days from June 12, 2021 within which to file a comment on the motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated October 14, 2020 and the petitioner's motion for leave to file a reply to the respondent's comment, requesting that it be given a period of fifteen (15) days from July 2, 2021 within which to file the same, are GRANTED.

SO ORDERED."Inting, J., designated Additional Member in lieu of Gesmundo, C.J., per Raffle dated December 6, 2021.

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Section 7, Rule 2 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court:

Section 7. Resolutions of motions for reconsideration or clarification of minute resolutions or unsigned resolutions not discussing the merits of the case and all other pleadings, motions and incidents subsequently filed. — Motions for reconsideration or clarification of minute resolutions or unsigned resolutions not discussing the merits of the case, and all other pleadings, motions and incidents subsequently filed in the case, shall be acted upon by the ponente on record with the participation of the other Members of the Court en banc or regular Division to which the ponente belongs. (As inserted on August 29, 2017)

2.Rollo, pp. 101-102.

3.Id. at 84-87.

4.Id. at 103-105.

5.Id. at 106-122.

6.Id. at 132-137.

7.Id. at 88-90.

8.Id. at 5.

9.Id. at 149-151.

10.Id. at 95, 156-159.

11.Id. at 91-94.

12.Id. at 95-100.

13.Id. at 164.

14. 433 Phil. 844 (2002).

15. 154 Phil. 142 (1974).

16. 87 Phil. 601 (1950).

17. See Ramirez v. People, 718 Phil. 653, 659 (2013).

18. See Leviste v. Court of Appeals, 629 Phil. 587, 614 (2010).

19.Id.

20.Rollo, p. 52.

21.Id. at 152-155.

22. G.R. Nos. 212399 & 212874, November 26, 2018.