Tejano v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A letter was sent to the Ombudsman alleging irregularities in certain PNB Cebu Branch accounts, specifically concerning FEBTC Check No. 742414 for ₱200,000.00, owned by Dolores Arancillo. The check was allegedly approved for encashment by petitioner Cayetano A. Tejano, Jr., PNB Vice-President and Manager of PNB Cebu (Casino Unit) Branch, and was kept in the PNB-Casino Vault as part of the cash on hand until February 7, 1991, instead of being cleared immediately after the loan of Jovana Fish Farms, Inc. was approved and funded. Procedural History: The Ombudsman for the Visayas found probable cause to recommend the filing of an Information for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 against Arancillo, Tejano, Jr., and Amelia Fufunan. An Information was filed before the Sandiganbayan. During pre-trial, the parties stipulated on several facts, including that Tejano, Jr. accommodated FEBTC Check No. 742414 of Arancillo, and it was kept in the vault from February 3 to 5, 1991. Fufunan, a cashier-reliever, prepared a note stating the check formed part of the cash on hand. The check eventually disappeared from the vault, and actual cash appeared. The Sandiganbayan, in a Decision dated March 17, 2003, found Tejano, Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, but acquitted Fufunan. Tejano, Jr. filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied. Subsequently, he filed an Omnibus Motion and a Motion to Hold in Abeyance. On October 13, 2003, he filed a Motion for New Trial, citing the arrest of Arancillo and alleging newly discovered evidence and insufficiency of evidence. The Sandiganbayan denied the Amended Motion for New Trial on January 26, 2004, stating that the motion was barred by rules and did not interrupt the period to appeal. An Entry of Judgment was made on January 29, 2004, making the decision final and executory on October 26, 2003. The Petition: Petitioner Tejano, Jr. filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan in denying his motion for new trial and in issuing an entry of judgment for a decision that had allegedly not yet become final and executory.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner's motion for new trial. Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in failing to appreciate grounds for a new trial, including denial of due process, insufficiency of evidence, and newly discovered evidence. Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction in issuing an entry of judgment for a decision that had become final and executory.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The Resolution dated January 26, 2004, of the Sandiganbayan denying the petitioner's motion for new trial is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Sandiganbayan's denial of the motion for new trial: The Court held that the Sandiganbayan correctly dismissed the petitioner's motion for new trial. Under Section 1, Rule 121 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, motions for reconsideration and new trial may be availed of before a judgment of conviction becomes final, which is within fifteen (15) days from promulgation. The petitioner had already filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. His subsequent remedy was an appeal to the Supreme Court via petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The Sandiganbayan's Decision was promulgated on March 17, 2003. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied on September 24, 2003. He then had fifteen (15) days from receipt of this denial, or until October 25, 2003, to file his petition for review on certiorari. Instead, he filed a motion for new trial, which did not interrupt the period to appeal. Therefore, the decision became final and executory on October 26, 2003, by operation of law. On the grounds for new trial: Even assuming, arguendo, that a motion for new trial was a proper remedy, the petitioner failed to meet the requisites. The alleged newly discovered evidence, the arrest and potential testimony of co-accused Arancillo, was not supported by an affidavit from Arancillo, nor was it shown that such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial with reasonable diligence. The Court reiterated that the "fresh period rule" allows a fresh period of 15 days to appeal from the denial of a motion for new trial or reconsideration. However, the petitioner's filing of a motion for new trial instead of an appeal meant he did not avail of this remedy within the reglementary period. The petitioner's claim that he was convicted on a "mere stipulation of facts" was also refuted by the Pre-Trial Order, which indicated a waiver of admissibility and an opportunity to submit memoranda. On the Sandiganbayan's issuance of an entry of judgment: The Sandiganbayan correctly issued an entry of judgment because the decision had become final and executory. The petitioner's procedural misstep of filing a motion for new trial did not interrupt the period to appeal. Consequently, the decision became final and executory after the lapse of the 15-day reglementary period without a proper appeal being taken. The petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was an improper remedy as an appeal was available, and it cannot be used as a substitute for a lost remedy of appeal.
Main Doctrine
A motion for new trial, filed after the denial of a motion for reconsideration and outside the reglementary period for appeal, does not interrupt the period to appeal. The Sandiganbayan's decision becomes final and executory upon the lapse of the appeal period. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal.