Moreno v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Cynthia G. Moreno, former mayor of Aloguinsan, Cebu, was indicted with co-accused for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). On June 5, 2014, all accused, including petitioner, were found guilty and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) month to ten (10) years, with perpetual disqualification from public office. Petitioner's subsequent appeals and petitions, including a Petition for Relief from Judgment, were denied by the Sandiganbayan and the Supreme Court. Her conviction for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 attained finality on June 25, 2019. Procedural History: On December 2, 2020, petitioner filed a Motion to Serve Sentence Under Home Care/House Arrest, citing health conditions and susceptibility to COVID-19. The Sandiganbayan denied this motion on December 17, 2020, for lack of evidence (medical records) and because 'home care/house arrest' is not provided for in the Rules of Criminal Procedure or by law for convicted prisoners. The Sandiganbayan also noted that prior grants of house arrest to former Presidents were not judicial precedents and that petitioner's situation was different. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied on March 9, 2021, for being filed out of time. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, assailing the Sandiganbayan's resolutions denying her motion for home care/house arrest. She argued that her motion was not a prohibited or unmeritorious motion under the Continuous Trial Guidelines, that these guidelines do not cover post-conviction motions, and that her motion should have been set for hearing as a litigious motion.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioner's Motion to Serve Sentence Under Home Care/House Arrest. Whether the Continuous Trial Guidelines govern post-conviction motions. Whether petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was filed out of time. Whether there are legal bases for allowing service of sentence under home care/house arrest, including constitutional considerations.
Ruling
The petition is bereft of merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the Resolutions dated December 17, 2020, and March 9, 2021, of the Sandiganbayan, First Division.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Sandiganbayan's denial of the Motion: The Court held that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner's Motion was considered unmeritorious as it was not supported by relevant documents, such as medical records or a physician's report, to substantiate her claimed health conditions. The Sandiganbayan correctly found that her apprehension regarding COVID-19 was speculative and devoid of proof. Furthermore, the Court noted that 'home care/house arrest' is not a recognized mode of serving sentence under Philippine law, and Articles 78 and 86 of the Revised Penal Code mandate service in designated penal establishments. On the applicability of the Continuous Trial Guidelines: Contrary to the petitioner's assertion, the Court clarified that the Continuous Trial Guidelines also govern post-conviction motions. The petitioner's motion was correctly dismissed outright by the Sandiganbayan as unmeritorious because it failed to meet the requirements of alleging plausible grounds supported by relevant documents and competent evidence. The documents submitted by the petitioner, such as awards she received, were deemed irrelevant to her claimed health condition. On the timeliness of the Motion for Reconsideration: The Court found that even if the motion were considered meritorious, the Motion for Reconsideration of the December 17, 2020 Resolution should have been filed within a non-extendible period of five calendar days from receipt, as per the Continuous Trial Guidelines. Petitioner's reliance on Section 1, Rule 52 of the 2019 Rules of Court was misplaced because the assailed resolution was an interlocutory order, not a judgment or final resolution. Therefore, the Sandiganbayan correctly denied the motion for reconsideration for being filed out of time. On the legal bases for home care/house arrest and constitutional considerations: The Court reiterated that Articles 78 and 86 of the Revised Penal Code provide for the execution and service of penalties in designated penal establishments. Article 88a, as amended by RA 11362, allows for community service in lieu of jail time for penalties of arresto menor and arresto mayor, but this does not extend to 'home care/house arrest' for more severe penalties like prision mayor, which is applicable to petitioner's sentence. The Court also distinguished the case of Paderanga v. Court of Appeals, noting that it concerned bail applications and not the place of incarceration after conviction. The Court also clarified that release on recognizance under RA 10389 is for those unable to post bail due to poverty, which does not apply to a convicted individual whose sentence has become final. While acknowledging the petitioner's understandable fear of contracting COVID-19, the Court emphasized that the law is clear and that it cannot create exceptions to Articles 78 and 86 of the RPC without violating the proscription against judicial legislation and the equal protection clause. The Court cited People v. Napoles where a similar prayer for provisional release on humanitarian grounds due to COVID-19 risk was denied.
Main Doctrine
A motion for home care or house arrest by a convicted individual, particularly when not supported by adequate medical documentation and filed after conviction has attained finality, may be denied outright for being unmeritorious and for failing to comply with procedural rules governing post-conviction motions. The court cannot create exceptions to penal statutes without violating the proscription against judicial legislation and the equal protection clause.