SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 206464. May 8, 2013.]
MANUEL LUIS S. SANCHEZ, petitioner, vs. SUPREME COURT (SECOND DIVISION) AND SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION), respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 08 May 2013 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 206464 — Manuel Luis S. Sanchez v. Supreme Court (Second Division) and Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division). — Petitioner Manuel Luis S. Sanchez was appointed Deputy Administrator, and later, Administrator, of the National Electrification Administration (NEA). On July 15, 2001, he was charged before the Sandiganbayan with violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 and Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code (Malversation of Public Funds) for the disappearance of P85 million worth of NEA's Treasury Bills Placement in the Landbank.
On April 7, 2011, the Sandiganbayan found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged, the dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Judgment is rendered in these cases as follows:
1. In Crim. Case No. 26748: finding accused Manuel Luis Santelices Sanchez Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt of violation of Section 3 (e), RA 3019 and sentencing him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) month as minimum to ten (10) years as maximum. He shall also suffer the penalty of perpetual disqualification from public office.
2. In Crim. Case No. 27766: finding accused Manuel Luis Santelices Sanchez Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt of the crime of Malversation of Public Funds as defined and penalized under Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentencing him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day of Prision Mayor maximum as minimum to eighteen (18) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of Reclusion Temporal maximum as maximum, and the penalty of perpetual special disqualification, and to pay a fine in the amount of P85 Million, which is the amount of the funds malversed. Accused Sanchez is further directed to return to National Electrification Administration the said amount malversed.
SO ORDERED. 1
Petitioner moved for reconsideration but it was denied by the Sandiganbayan in its January 12, 2012 Resolution. 2
The petitioner sought recourse with this Court through a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which was raffled to the Second Division and docketed as G.R. No. 200151. The petitioner questioned the Sandiganbayan ruling on both cases.
In a Minute Resolution 3 dated April 23, 2012, the Supreme Court-Second Division denied the Petition for lack of any reversible error committed by the Sandiganbayan. The Petition also lacked a verified statement as to the date a copy of the assailed decision was received by counsel for petitioner.
The petitioner sought reconsideration, but the motion was denied with finality in a Resolution 4 dated August 13, 2012. Petitioner was informed that no further pleadings or motions shall be entertained and that entry of judgment shall be made in due course.
Unfazed, petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to Admit and File Second Motion for Reconsideration and to Refer the Case to the Supreme Court En Banc, 5and a Supplement 6 to the Second Motion for Reconsideration.
On February 13, 2013, 7 the Court denied petitioner's motions on the ground that a second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading and for the additional reason that the Supreme Court en banc is not an appellate court to which the decisions/resolutions of the Division may be appealed.
Petitioner now filed the instant verified Petition for a Writ of Amparo.
Petitioner argues that he was denied due process when the Court denied his Petition by Minute Resolution. He alleges that he was not informed as to the grounds for the denial of his Petition.
He also claims that Justice Arturo D. Brion (who supposedly penned the SC-Second Division Minute Resolution) and Justice Maria Cristina J. Cornejo (who penned the Sandiganbayan Decision) were biased against him because of his exposes against former President Gloria Macapal Arroyo. He insists that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in not giving credence to the National Bureau of Investigation Report finding that his signature was forged.
Petitioner prays for the following reliefs:
(1) IMMEDIATELY UPON THE FILING OF THIS PETITION:
1.1 TO ISSUE A TEMPORARY PROTECTION ORDER with the following directives in favor of petitioner to protect him during his exposes against the previous administration:
1.1.1 Restraining all persons having interest adverse to petitioner in relation to the cases below from communicating, threatening, intimidating, or imposing undue influence — personally or otherwise — upon him in the prosecution of this petition for a Writ of Amparo;
1.2 TO ISSUE A WRIT OF AMPARO under Section 6 of A.M. 07-9-12-SC with the following directives:
1.2.1 directing its Second Division to suspend the Entry of Judgment in G.R. No. 200151 entitled "Manuel Luis S. Sanchez vs. Hon. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines";
1.2.2 ordering the Supreme Court — Second Division to hold in abeyance all further proceedings in G.R. No. 200151;
1.2.3 likewise ordering the Supreme Court-Second Division to hold in abeyance any further action in G.R. No. 200151 in so far as it relates to Criminal Case No. 27766.
(2) AFTER DUE PROCEEDINGS UPON THIS PETITION:
2.1 GRANTING THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF AMPARO —
2.1.1 declaring the Supreme Court-Second Division to have violated the mandate of the Constitution to accord due process to petitioner;
2.1.2 declaring the Sandiganbayan-Fourth Division as having extremely and gravely abused its discretion in rendering judgment which is contrary to evidence or not support by any evidence at all.
2.2 NULLIFYING AND SETTING ASIDE the Resolutions of the Supreme Court Second Division dated 23 April 2012 and 13 February 2013 in G.R. No. 200151, and granting due course to the Petition for Review on Certiorari, G.R. No. 200151 and assigning it to another division for resolution;
2.3 IN THE ALTERNATIVE, taking upon itself an en banc review of the decision of the Sandiganbayan-Fourth Division, and acquitting petitioner of the charges leveled against him.
Petitioner likewise prays for other or further reliefs which may be deemed just and equitable. 8
We deny.
The instant Petition, disguised as a Petition for Writ of Amparo, is actually a third motion for reconsideration which is a prohibited pleading. It assails the Sandiganbayan Decision which was already denied with finality in the Court's Resolution of April 23, 2012. A Petition for a Writ of Amparo "is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation of an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity." 9
Petitioner's motion to refer the instant case to the Supreme Court En Banc must also fail because under SC Circular No. 2-89, the Supreme Court En Banc is not an appellate court to which the decisions/resolutions of the Divisions may be appealed.
The Second Division of the Supreme Court did not deprive petitioner of due process when it denied his Petition for Review on Certiorari by way of Minute Resolutions. Section 6 (d) of Rule 13 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court allows the denial of a Petition under Rule 45 via a Minute Resolution if there is no reversible error committed in the challenged decision, resolution, or order of the court below. It is also jurisprudentially settled that issuance of Minute Resolutions by the Court is not tantamount to denial of due process. The Court issues a Minute Resolution "where a case is patently without merit, where the issues raised are factual in nature, where the decision appealed from is supported by substantial evidence and is in accord with the facts of the case and the applicable laws, where it is clear from the records that the petition is filed merely to forestall the early execution of judgment and for non-compliance with the rules." 10 When the Court denies "due course to the petition and states that . . . no reversible error in the respondent court's decision is shown, . . . there is sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement" 11 that no petition shall be denied due course without stating the legal basis therefor. 12
Moreover, the filing of a Petition for a Writ of Amparo is barred when a criminal action has already been commenced, pursuant to Section 22 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. Further pursuant to Castillo v. Cruz, 13a Petition for a Writ of Amparo is an extraordinary remedy which cannot be used as a tool to stall the execution of a final and executory decision.
Finally, after having filed a Motion for Reconsideration and later a Second Motion for Reconsideration of the Minute Resolution of April 23, 2012 issued in G.R. No. 200151, the petitioner now claims that it pertains only to Criminal Case No. 26748 when it stated, "Considering the allegations, issues and arguments in the petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision dated 7 April 2011 and Resolution dated 12 January 2012 of the Sandiganbayan in Crim. Case No. 26748, the Court Resolves to DENY the petition for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed judgment to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction."
While the Resolution of April 23, 2012 failed to mention Criminal Case No. 27766, this should not be interpreted that it still remains unresolved. The two cases, Crim. Case No. 26748 and Crim. Case No. 27766, were tried and decided jointly by the Sandiganbayan, and the Petition in G.R. No. 200151 assailed the judgment in the two cases. When a Petition is filed with the Court, the Decision being assailed is subject to review in whole by the Court. The non-inclusion of Criminal Case No. 27766 in the Resolution of April 23, 2012 was a clear inadvertence. Thus, it is not correct for the petitioner to assume that Criminal Case No. 27766 remains unresolved.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for a Writ of Amparo is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 181-182; penned by Associate Justice Maria Cristina J. Cornejo and concurred in by Associate Justices Gregory S. Ong and Jose R. Hernandez.
2.Id. at 245-252.
3.Id. at 644.
4.Id. at 731.
5.Id. at 732-785.
6.Id. at 786-802.
7.See Resolution dated February 13, 2013, id. at 803.
8.Id. at 62-64. Emphases in the original.
9.The Rule on the Writ of Amparo, Section 1.
10.Borromeo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 82273, June 1, 1990, 186 SCRA 1, 5.
11.Id. at 6.
12.Id.
13.G.R. No. 182165, November 25, 2009, 605 SCRA 628, 639.