Icdang v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Marino B. Icdang, while serving as Regional Director of the Office for Southern Cultural Communities (OSCC) Region XII, received cash advances totaling ₱196,000.00, and was accountable for additional advances totaling ₱232,000.00 for various livelihood projects. A special audit by the Commission on Audit (COA) revealed that these funds were not properly accounted for, with a shortage of ₱219,392.75 discovered. The audit also noted that the intended projects were not implemented, and official cashbooks were not maintained. Procedural History: Following the COA's findings and a demand for restitution that went unheeded, the Office of the Ombudsman found probable cause to charge petitioner with malversation of public funds and violation of R.A. No. 3019. The Sandiganbayan (Second Division) subsequently convicted petitioner of malversation of public funds in Criminal Case No. 26327, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty and ordering him to reimburse the government. He was acquitted of the charge for violation of R.A. No. 3019. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied, and the decision became final and executory. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, arguing that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion by convicting him without affording him the opportunity to present his evidence, citing issues with his counsel's assistance, financial constraints, and denial of due process. He sought a remand of the case for the presentation of his defense. However, the Supreme Court noted that a petition for certiorari was not the proper remedy, as an appeal under Rule 45 should have been filed within the reglementary period, which had lapsed due to a late motion for reconsideration.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in rendering its judgment of conviction. Whether the petitioner was denied his right to due process and the right to be heard. Whether the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Decision promulgated on May 26, 2008, and Resolution issued on November 18, 2008, by the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 26327 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Sandiganbayan's alleged grave abuse of discretion: The Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Sandiganbayan acted within its jurisdiction when it submitted the case for decision and rendered a judgment of conviction based on the prosecution's evidence after the defense failed to present its own evidence despite ample opportunity. The failure of the petitioner to present evidence to rebut the prima facie presumption of malversation, arising from his failure to account for the public funds, supported the conviction. The Court reiterated that the presumption under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code is rebuttable, but the petitioner failed to overcome it. On the alleged denial of due process and right to be heard: The Court found no denial of due process. The promulgation of judgment is valid even without the presence of the accused's counsel, as long as the accused is present or has been duly notified. The records showed that the defense was granted ample opportunity to present evidence, with numerous postponements granted due to the counsel's health and the petitioner's financial constraints. The Sandiganbayan even appointed a counsel de oficio. Despite these opportunities spanning four years, the defense failed to present any documentary evidence or witnesses. The Court inferred that the petitioner likely did not possess the evidence he claimed to have. On the propriety of the remedy: The Supreme Court held that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy to challenge a conviction when the petitioner failed to file an appeal within the reglementary period. The petitioner should have filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The Court emphasized that certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal that has been lost. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was filed six days late, rendering the Sandiganbayan's decision final and executory. While late appeals may be allowed in rare cases, exceptional circumstances must justify the relaxation of the rules, which were not present here.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for an appeal under Rule 45 when the latter remedy was lost due to the petitioner's failure to file within the reglementary period, absent exceptional circumstances justifying the relaxation of the rules. The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, is prima facie evidence that he has put such missing fund or property to personal uses, and this presumption can only be overcome by adequate evidence that nullifies any likelihood of personal use.