Payumo v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A shooting incident occurred on February 26, 1980, in Sitio Aluag, Barangay Sta. Barbara, Iba, Zambales, where a composite team of Philippine Constabulary (PC) and Integrated National Police (INP) units allegedly fired upon civilians, resulting in the death of Amante Payumo and injuries to Teofilo Payumo and others. Several individuals were indicted for Murder with Multiple Frustrated and Attempted Murder. Procedural History: The Sandiganbayan Second Division initially convicted the accused in 1984. This conviction was set aside by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 69422, remanding the case for a new trial. The Sandiganbayan First Division, and later the Fifth Division, conducted a new trial. On November 27, 1998, the Fifth Division rendered a decision convicting the accused again. The accused filed an Omnibus Motion to Set Aside Judgment and for New Trial. The Sandiganbayan Special Fifth Division, voting 3-2, granted this motion on October 24, 2001, setting aside the November 27, 1998 Decision and granting a second new trial. The Special Fifth Division reasoned that the promulgation of the November 27, 1998 Decision was invalid because the ponente, Justice Legaspi, had transferred to another division before promulgation. It also found a second new trial necessary due to alleged irregularities in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Teofilo and Edgar Payumo and to allow the presentation of JAGO records. The Petition: Petitioners Edgar Payumo, et al. filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus before the Supreme Court, assailing the October 24, 2001 Resolution of the Sandiganbayan Special Fifth Division. They argued that the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in setting aside the November 27, 1998 Decision and granting a new trial. They also questioned the inaction of the Ombudsman and OSP in opposing the motion.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the respondent court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in granting the private respondents' "Omnibus Motion to Set Aside Judgment and for New Trial," specifically regarding the setting aside of the November 27, 1998 Decision. Whether or not the respondent court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in granting the private respondents' "Omnibus Motion to Set Aside Judgment and for New Trial," specifically regarding the propriety of granting a new trial based on the alleged erroneous admission of testimonies and the need to present JAGO records. Whether or not the Ombudsman and OSP committed grave abuse of discretion by failing to file an opposition to the Omnibus Motion to Set Aside Judgment and for New Trial and a motion for reconsideration.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari, set aside the Resolution dated October 24, 2001 of the Sandiganbayan Special Fifth Division, and reinstated the November 27, 1998 Decision. The prayer for a writ of mandamus was denied. The case was remanded to the Sandiganbayan for appropriate proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Sandiganbayan acted in excess of jurisdiction in setting aside the November 27, 1998 Decision: The Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan Special Fifth Division acted in excess of its jurisdiction. The promulgation of the November 27, 1998 Decision, penned by Justice Legaspi, was valid even though he had transferred to the Second Division. The Court clarified that a decision becomes binding only upon promulgation and that for a judgment to be binding, it must be duly signed and promulgated during the incumbency of the judge who penned it. Justice Legaspi remained an incumbent justice of the Sandiganbayan at the time of promulgation, and the other two justices of the Fifth Division signed and adopted the judgment, signifying their continued support. Jurisdiction is vested in the court, not in individual justices or divisions, and a transfer between divisions does not divest the justice of their authority as long as they remain an incumbent of the Sandiganbayan. On the propriety of granting a new trial: The Court found the grant of a new trial by the Special Fifth Division to be devoid of legal and factual basis. The grounds cited, namely the alleged erroneous admission of testimonies of Teofilo and Edgar Payumo and the need to present JAGO records, were insufficient. The Court noted that even if the admission of the Payumos' testimonies was erroneous, other independent evidence sufficiently established the crime and the participation of the accused. Regarding the JAGO records, the Court held that they did not meet the criteria for newly discovered evidence, as they could have been obtained with reasonable diligence during the trial. The failure to present them was attributed to the negligence of the accused or their counsel, which is binding upon the accused. On the alleged grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman and OSP: The Court found the petition for mandamus to be without merit. The petitioners failed to present clear and convincing proof that the Ombudsman and OSP unlawfully neglected their duty. The Court emphasized that the determination of which pleadings to file and the necessity thereof involves the exercise of discretion, which cannot be controlled by mandamus. The remedy of mandamus lies only to compel the performance of a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one.
Main Doctrine
The Sandiganbayan Special Fifth Division acted in excess of its jurisdiction when it nullified the November 27, 1998 Decision and granted a new trial. The promulgation of a decision by a justice who has transferred to another division of the same court, but remains an incumbent justice of the court, is valid. Furthermore, the grounds cited for granting a new trial, namely the alleged erroneous admission of testimonies and the opportunity to present JAGO records, were insufficient to warrant a new trial.