Hernan v. Sandiganbayan
MODIFICATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Ophelia Hernan, an accounting clerk and later Supervising Fiscal Clerk and cashier at the Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC) in Baguio City, was entrusted with public funds for deposit. In October 1982, she joined the DOTC and was promoted in September 1984. As cashier, she received collections from clients for telegraphic transfers, toll fees, and special message fees, which were to be deposited in the DOTC's Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) account. In December 1996, a Commission on Audit (COA) auditor, Maria Imelda Lopez, conducted a cash examination and discovered discrepancies related to two deposit slips dated September 19, 1996 (P11,300.00) and November 29, 1996 (P81,348.20). Upon verification with the LBP, it was found that these deposits were not officially recorded by the bank. While the larger amount was accounted for, the P11,300.00 remittance was not. Despite demands, Hernan refused to pay the missing amount, leading to a complaint for malversation of public funds filed by the COA with the Office of the Ombudsman. 2. Procedural History: Following the Ombudsman's recommendation, Hernan was charged with malversation of public funds before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City. The RTC found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced her to imprisonment, a fine, and perpetual special disqualification, ordering her to return the P11,300.00. Hernan's initial appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as the Sandiganbayan has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases involving positions lower than Salary Grade 27. The case was then elevated to the Sandiganbayan, which affirmed the RTC's conviction but modified the penalty. Hernan's subsequent motions for reconsideration and to reopen the case were denied by the Sandiganbayan, with the latter emphasizing that evidence not offered during trial cannot be considered on appeal and that the motions constituted prohibited pleadings. The Sandiganbayan's denial of her motion to reopen and petition for reconsideration led to the filing of the instant petition. 3. The Petition: Petitioner Ophelia Hernan filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Sandiganbayan's Resolutions dated February 2, 2015, and November 13, 2009, and its Decision dated February 2, 2015. She argues that the Sandiganbayan gravely erred and acted with grave abuse of discretion by concluding that her motion to reopen was filed out of time, by finding that the evidence she intended to present was already passed upon by the trial court, and by considering her motions as prohibited second and third motions for reconsideration. Hernan claims her counsel was not properly notified of a crucial resolution, rendering the entry of judgment premature, and seeks to introduce new evidence, including an affidavit and deposit slips, to prove her innocence. She also asks the Court to relax the rules and remand the case for further reception of evidence. The Supreme Court, however, found the petition devoid of merit, noting that certiorari was an improper remedy and that Hernan's negligence contributed to the issues surrounding notification and the timeliness of her motions. Nevertheless, the Court, sitting en banc, decided to reopen the case to modify the penalty based on the recent enactment of Republic Act No. 10951, which reduced the penalties for malversation of public funds.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely erred in concluding that the motion to reopen was filed out of time, considering the extraordinary and exceptional circumstances surrounding the case. Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely erred in finding that the evidence intended to be presented by petitioner, should her motion for reopening be granted, was passed upon by the trial court. Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely erred in pronouncing that the motion to reopen and the petition for reconsideration filed by petitioner are considered as the second and third motions to the denial of the decision. Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely erred in affirming the conviction for malversation of public funds. Whether the final and executory judgment should be reopened to apply the provisions of Republic Act No. 10951, which reduced the penalty applicable to the crime of malversation.
Ruling
The instant petition is DENIED. The Resolution dated February 2, 2015 and Decision dated November 13, 2009 of the Sandiganbayan 2nd Division are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner Ophelia Hernan is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum term, to three (3) years, six (6) months, and twenty (20) days prision correccional, as maximum term.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court found no merit in petitioner's claim that the entry of judgment was premature due to her counsel's alleged non-receipt of the August 31, 2010 Resolution. The Court reiterated the established rule that in the absence of proper and adequate notice to the court of a change of address, the service of an order or resolution upon counsel must be made at the last address on record. It is the duty of both the party and counsel to devise a system for receiving mail and for counsel to officially inform the court of any change in address. The Court noted that petitioner's counsel failed to inform the court of her new office address, and the mere indication of a new address in a motion for reconsideration does not constitute proper notice. Furthermore, petitioner herself admitted receiving the subject resolution, indicating inexcusable negligence on her part and her counsel's for not acting sooner, especially after a three-year delay. On Issue 2: The Court held that the Sandiganbayan did not gravely err in denying the motion to reopen the case. The requisites for reopening a case, as provided in Section 24, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, include that the reopening must be before the finality of a judgment of conviction. In this case, the August 31, 2010 Resolution denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration had already become final and executory and was recorded in the Entry Book of Judgments on June 26, 2013. Therefore, the motion to reopen was filed out of time. The Court emphasized that any supposed predicament about former counsel failing to present witnesses and documents should have been advanced before the trial court, as it is the trial court that receives evidence and rules on exhibits formally offered. On Issue 3: The Supreme Court agreed with the Sandiganbayan's ruling that petitioner's Urgent Motion to Reopen the Case and Petition for Reconsideration with Prayer for Recall of Entry of Judgment were effectively second and third motions for reconsideration, respectively, from the Sandiganbayan's November 13, 2009 Decision. The Court affirmed that these were prohibited pleadings under Section 5, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court, as the grounds raised were merely a rehash of those previously discussed and denied. The Court stressed that courts are called upon to pierce the form and go into the substance of pleadings, not to be misled by a false or wrong name given to a pleading, as the title is not controlling. On Issue 4: The Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan's finding of guilt for malversation of public funds. The elements of malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code were established: petitioner was a public officer accountable for public funds, and she failed to account for the P11,300.00 upon demand. The Court upheld the trial court's and Sandiganbayan's reasoning that even if petitioner's defense of leaving the money with the bank teller were true, her actions still constituted malversation through inexcusable negligence, as she permitted another person to take the money by accepting unvalidated deposit slips. This negligence created the opportunity for misappropriation, satisfying the element of malversation through abandonment or negligence. On Issue 5: The Supreme Court, motu proprio, found it necessary to reopen the case and recall the Entry of Judgment dated June 26, 2013, not for further reception of evidence, but to modify the penalty imposed. The Court recognized the recent passage of Republic Act No. 10951, which adjusted the penalties for malversation, as an exceptional circumstance warranting the relaxation of the doctrine of immutability of final judgments. Applying the new law retroactively, as it is favorable to the accused, the penalty for malversation involving P11,300.00 was reduced from prision mayor to prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods. Considering the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the Court imposed an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to three (3) years, six (6) months, and twenty (20) days prision correccional, as maximum. The Court also noted that the reduced penalty might allow petitioner to apply for probation under R.A. No. 10707.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, established that while judgments that have acquired finality are generally immutable and unalterable, an exceptional circumstance warranting the relaxation of this doctrine is the retroactive application of a penal law favorable to the accused. Specifically, the passage of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10951, which adjusted the penalties for certain crimes including malversation, necessitates the modification of sentences even if the judgment of conviction has become final and executory. This ensures that no injustice is suffered by the accused and allows for the possibility of applying for probation under Republic Act No. 10707 if the modified penalty becomes probationable.