People v. Celorio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Lilame V. Celorio, an SSS member, filed a disability benefits claim on May 26, 2004 for Pulmonary Tuberculosis, submitting supporting documents including a Medical Certificate from Dr. Joyce Fernandez-Olan dated May 21, 2004, DDR 1 form, MMD 102 SSS Medical Certificate, chest x-ray from Holy Angel Diagnostic Center dated November 29, 2001, and Radiologic Consultation Report from Quezon City Diagnostic Clinic dated May 14, 2004. SSS granted her benefits totaling P93,948.80 based on a 30% disability rating. During random audit of settled claims, SSS Fraud Investigation Department confirmed the documents were spurious and fraudulent. SSS demanded refund, which Celorio ignored, leading to a criminal complaint filed with the Quezon City Prosecutor's Office. On June 4, 2008, an Information charged her with violation of Section 28(a) and (b) of R.A. No. 1161, as amended by R.A. No. 8282, alleging willful false statements and presentation of spurious documents to defraud SSS. Celorio was arraigned on December 11, 2008, pleaded not guilty, and trial proceeded. Procedural History: RTC Quezon City Branch 85 convicted Celorio on April 23, 2013 (Amended Decision correcting docket), imposing for Sec. 28(a): 1 year 1 day to 4 years 9 months 11 days and P5,000 fine; for Sec. 28(b): 1 year imprisonment and P5,000 fine; ordered refund of P93,948.80 offset against her P122,270.60 contributions, refunding balance P28,321.80. SSS filed Urgent Motion for Reconsideration on April 26, 2013, arguing wrong penalty under amended Sec. 28(b) (min. 6 years 1 day) and no offset. Celorio applied for probation April 25, 2013. RTC denied SSS MR on October 24, 2013, ruling judgment final per Rule 120 Sec. 7 upon probation application; granted probation December 19, 2013 for 2 years. Petitioners filed Rule 65 certiorari to CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 133714); CA dismissed April 7, 2016 as wrong remedy (should be appeal), denied MR August 9, 2016. The Petition: Petitioners (People and SSS) via OSG sought reversal, arguing CA erred in ruling certiorari improper and RTC lacked grave abuse; RTC imposed repealed Sec. 28(b) penalty (pre-1997: max 1 year; post-R.A. 8282: min 6 years 1 day max 12 years), voiding probation eligibility (P.D. 968 Sec. 9); offset invalid per Civil Code Art. 1288 and SSS Law; cited Rep. of Phils. v. Judge Caguioa for grave abuse via disregard of law. Respondent countered wrong remedy (appeal), no grave abuse shown, probation completed March 24, 2016.
Issue(s)
Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to assail the RTC's imposition of an incorrect penalty and grant of probation. Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in imposing a penalty from the repealed Sec. 28(b) of R.A. 1161, offsetting civil liability against SSS contributions, and granting probation.
Ruling
Petition GRANTED. CA Decision and Resolution REVERSED and SET ASIDE. RTC Amended Decision MODIFIED: Sec. 28(a) penalty affirmed; Sec. 28(b) corrected to 6 years 1 day min to 8 years 1 day max plus P5,000 fine; full civil indemnity P93,948.80 without offset. RTC Resolutions denying MR and granting probation ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1 (Proper Remedy - Certiorari): The RTC's imposition of a penalty under repealed Sec. 28(b) of R.A. 1161 (pre-R.A. 8282: max 1 year; post-amendment: min 6 years 1 day to 12 years) is grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction, as it exercises power arbitrarily, evading duty to apply current law, violating separation of powers by legislating non-existent penalties (citing Cruz v. People: obstinate disregard of law = grave abuse; People v. Gatward: impossible penalty renders judgment void, never final). Unlike errors of judgment (Madrigal Transport v. Lapanday: reviewable by appeal), this error of jurisdiction is correctible only by Rule 65 certiorari (Toh v. CA distinction; Rep. v. Caguioa). Probation application under Rule 120 Sec. 7 does not finalize void judgment (Villareal v. People: Sec. 7 inapplicable to Rule 65 assailing jurisdiction); no double jeopardy attaches to invalid sentence lacking court competence (first jeopardy requisites fail: no valid conviction/sentence; People v. Veneracion allowed certiorari to correct penalty despite moral qualms, vs. Leones appeal denied). Thus, CA erred in dismissing as 'wrong remedy' and mere 'abuse of discretion' without patent grossness. On Issue 2 (Grave Abuse by RTC): RTC grossly disregarded R.A. 8282 amendment, imposing obsolete 1-year penalty for Sec. 28(b), rendering sentence baseless/void (Chief Justice Gesmundo's Reflections: repealed penalties cease to exist; judges must know statutes). Corrected penalty (indeterminate 6 years 1 day min to 8 years 1 day max, fine P5,000) disqualifies probation (P.D. 968 Sec. 9(a): max 6 years bars). Offset invalid: Civil liability from penal offense non-compensable (Civil Code Art. 1288); SSS contributions are not demandable debts but entitle contingent benefits only, no mutuality of liquidated obligations (Union Bank v. DBP). Satisfaction of crime-derived liability imperative; RTC exceeded jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
The imposition by a trial court of a penalty prescribed under a repealed or superseded provision of law constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, rendering the sentence void ab initio, which does not attain finality upon application for probation under Rule 120, Section 7, and is correctible via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 without violating double jeopardy. Such an invalid sentence fails to attach first jeopardy because it exceeds the trial court's jurisdiction to impose non-existent penalties, distinguishing it from mere errors of judgment reviewable only by appeal. Probation benefits under P.D. No. 968, Section 9(a) are unavailable to those sentenced to a maximum term exceeding six (6) years, as corrected herein to six years and one day minimum for violation of Section 28(b) of R.A. No. 1161, as amended. Civil liability arising from a penal offense cannot be compensated or offset against SSS membership contributions, per Civil Code Article 1288, as contributions entitle members to contingent benefits, not demandable debts. This ruling upholds separation of powers by prohibiting judges from legislating penalties 'out of thin air' based on obsolete laws, ensuring fidelity to legislative intent in penal provisions.