Republic of the
Supreme Court
SECOND DIVISION
Petitioner,
- versus -
HON. TERESITA J. LEONARDO-
DE CASTRO, HON. DIOSDADO M.
PERALTA and
HON. EFREN N.
DE LA CRUZ, in their official capacities
as Presiding Justice and Associate Justices,
respectively, of the First Division of the
Sandiganbayan, and NIERNA S. DOLLER,
Respondents.
x----------------------------------------------------x
PEOPLE OF THE
Petitioner,
Present:
CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
- versus - BRION,
PEREZ,
SERENO, and
REYES, JJ.
FIRST DIVISION OF THE Promulgated:
SANDIGANBAYAN and ARNOLD
JAMES M. YSIDORO,
Respondents. February 6, 2012
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
BRION, J.:
Before us are consolidated petitions assailing the rulings of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 27963, entitled People of the Philippines v. Arnold James M. Ysidoro.
G.R. No. 171513 is a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (Rules) filed by petitioner Arnold James M. Ysidoro to annul the resolutions, dated July 6, 2005[1] and January 25, 2006,[2] of the Sandiganbayan granting the Motion to Suspend Accused Pendente Lite.
G.R. No. 190963, on the other hand, is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed by the People of the Philippines through the Office of the Special Prosecutor (People) to annul and set aside the decision,[3] dated October 1, 2009, and the resolution,[4] dated December 9, 2009, of the Sandiganbayan which acquitted Ysidoro for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Acts), as amended.
The Antecedents
Ysidoro, as
Municipal Mayor of
That
during the period from June 2001 to December 2001 or for sometime prior or
subsequent thereto, at the Municipality of Leyte, Province of Leyte,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of [the] Honorable Court, above-named
accused, ARNOLD JAMES M. YSIDORO, a public officer, being the Municipal Mayor
of Leyte, Leyte, in such capacity and committing the offense in relation to
office, with deliberate intent, with manifest partiality and evident bad faith,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally, withhold and fail to
give to Nierna S. Doller, Municipal Social Welfare and Development Officer (MSWDO)
of Leyte, Leyte, without any legal basis, her RATA for the months of August,
September, October, November and December, all in the year 2001, in the total
amount of TWENTY-TWO THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE PESOS (P22,125.00),
Philippine Currency, and her Productivity Pay in the year 2000, in the amount
of TWO THOUSAND PESOS (P2,000.00), Philippine Currency, and despite
demands made upon accused to release and pay her the amount of P22,125.00
and P2,000.00, accused failed to do so, thus accused in the course of
the performance of his official functions had deprived the complainant of her
RATA and Productivity Pay, to the damage and injury of Nierna S. Doller and
detriment of public service.[5]
Ysidoro filed an omnibus motion to quash the information and, in the alternative, for judicial determination of probable cause,[6] which were both denied by the Sandiganbayan. In due course, Ysidoro was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty.
The Sandiganbayan Preventively Suspends Ysidoro
On motion of the prosecution,[7] the Sandiganbayan preventively suspended Ysidoro for ninety (90) days in accordance with Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019, which states:
Any incumbent public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under this Act or under Title 7, Book II of the Revised Penal Code or for any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property whether as a simple or as complex offense and in whatever stage of execution and mode of participation, is pending in court, shall be suspended from office.
Ysidoro filed a motion for reconsideration, and questioned the necessity and the duration of the preventive suspension. However, the Sandiganbayan denied the motion for reconsideration, ruling that -
Clearly, by well established
jurisprudence, the provision of Section 13, Republic Act 3019 make[s] it
mandatory for the Sandiganbayan to suspend, for a period not exceeding ninety
(90) days, any public officer who has been validly charged with a violation of
Republic Act 3019, as amended or Title 7, Book II of the Revised Penal Code or
any offense involving fraud upon government of public funds or property.[8]
Ysidoro assailed the validity of these
Sandiganbayan rulings in his petition (G.R.
No. 171513) before the Court. Meanwhile, trial on the merits in the principal
case continued before the Sandiganbayan. The prosecution and the defense presented
their respective evidence.
The prosecution presented Nierna
S. Doller as its sole witness.
According to Doller, she is the Municipal Social Welfare Development
Officer of
To corroborate Dollers testimony, the prosecution presented documentary evidence in the form of disbursement vouchers, request for obligation of allotment, letters, excerpts from the police blotter, memorandum, telegram, certification, order, resolution, and the decision of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman absolving her of the charges.[9]
On the other hand, the
defense presented seven (7) witnesses,[10]
including Ysidoro, and documentary evidence. The defense showed that the withholding
of Dollers RATA was due to the investigation conducted by the Office of the
Mayor on the anomalies allegedly committed by Doller. For this reason, Ysidoro
ordered the padlocking of Dollers office, and ordered Doller and her staff to
hold office at the Office of the Mayor for the close monitoring and evaluation
of their functions. Doller was also prohibited from outside travel without
Ysidoros approval.
The
Sandiganbayan Acquits Ysidoro
In a decision
dated
This
Court acknowledges the fact that Doller was entitled to RATA. However, the
antecedent facts and circumstances did not show any indicia of bad faith on the
part of [Ysidoro] in withholding the release of Dollers RATA.
In
fact, this Court believes that [Ysidoro] acted in good faith and in honest
belief that Doller was not entitled to her RATA based on the opinion of the COA
resident Auditor and Section 317 of the Government Accounting and Auditing
Manual.
It
may be an erroneous interpretation of the law, nonetheless, [Ysidoros]
reliance to the same was a clear basis of good faith on his part in withholding
Dollers RATA.
With
regard to the Productivity Incentive Bonus, Doller was aware that the
non-submission of the Performance Evaluation Form is a ground for an employees
non-eligibility to receive the Productivity Incentive Bonus:
a) Employees disqualification for
performance-based personnel actions which would require the rating for the
given period such as promotion, training or scholarship grants, and
productivity incentive bonus if the failure of the submission of the report form
is the fault of the employees.
Doller
even admitted in her testimonies that she failed to submit her Performance
Evaluation Report to [Ysidoro] for signature.
There
being no malice, ill-motive or taint of bad faith, [Ysidoro] had the legal
basis to withhold Dollers RATA and Productivity pay.[12]
(italics supplied)
In a resolution dated
It must be stressed that
this Court acquitted [Ysidoro] for two reasons: firstly, the prosecution failed
to discharge its burden of proving that accused Ysidoro acted in bad faith as
stated in paragraph 1 above; and secondly, the exculpatory proof of good faith xxx.
Needless to state, paragraph
1 alone would be enough ground for the acquittal of accused Ysidoro. Hence, the
COA Resident Auditor need not be presented in court to prove that [Ysidoro]
acted in good faith. This is based on the legal precept that when the prosecution fails to discharge its
burden, an accused need not even offer evidence in his behalf. [14]
(italics supplied)
Supervening events occurred
after the filing of Ysidoros petition which rendered the issue in G.R. No. 171513
i.e., the propriety of his
preventive suspension moot and academic. First,
Ysidoro is no longer the incumbent Municipal Mayor of
In light of these events, what
is left to resolve is the petition for certiorari
filed by the People on the validity
of the judgment acquitting Ysidoro of the criminal charge.
The Peoples Petition
The People posits that the elements of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 have been duly established by the evidence, in that:
First. [Ysidoro]
was the Municipal Mayor of
Second. He
caused undue injury to [Doller] when he ordered the withholding of her RATA and
productivity pay. It is noteworthy that complainant was the only official in
the municipality who did not receive her RATA and productivity pay even if the
same were already included in the budget for that year. x x x
Consequently,
[Doller] testified that her family suffered actual and moral damages due to the
withholding of her benefits namely: a) the disconnection of electricity in
their residence; x x x b) demand letters from their creditors; x x x c) her son
was dropped from school because they were not able to pay for his final exams;
x x x d) [h]er children did not want to go to school anymore because they were embarrassed
that collectors were running after them.
Third. Accused
clearly acted in evident bad faith as he used his position to deprive [Doller]
of her RATA and productivity pay for the period mentioned to harass her due to
the transfer of political affiliation of her husband.[15]
(emphasis supplied)
The People argues[16] that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion, and exceeded its, or acted without, jurisdiction in not finding Ysidoro in bad faith when he withheld Dollers RATA and deprived her of her productivity bonus. The Sandiganbayan failed to take into account that: first, the Commission on Audit (COA) resident auditor was never presented in court; second, the documentary evidence showed that Doller continuously discharged the functions of her office even if she had been prevented from outside travel by Ysidoro; third, Ysidoro refused to release Dollers RATA and productivity bonus notwithstanding the dismissal by the Ombudsman of the cases against her for alleged anomalies committed in office; and fourth, Ysidoro caused Dollers name to be dropped from the payroll without justifiable cause, and he refused to sign the disbursement vouchers and the request for obligation of allotment so that Doller could claim her RATA and her productivity bonus.
In the same manner, the People asserts that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion when it ruled that Doller was not eligible to receive the productivity bonus for her failure to submit her Performance Evaluation Report. The Sandiganbayan disregarded the evidence showing the strained relationship and the maneuverings made by Ysidoro so that he could deny her this incentive.
In his Comment,[17] Ysidoro prays for the dismissal of the petition for procedural and substantive infirmities. First, he claims that the petition was filed out of time considering the belated filing of the Peoples motion for reconsideration before the Sandiganbayan. He argues that by reason of the late filing of the motion for reconsideration, the present petition was filed beyond the 60-day reglementary period. Ysidoro also argues that the 60-day reglementary period should have been counted from the Peoples receipt of the Sandiganbayans decision since no motion for reconsideration was seasonably filed. Second, Ysidoro claims that the Sandiganbayans ruling was in accord with the evidence and the prosecution was not denied due process to properly avail of the remedy of a writ of certiorari. And third, Ysidoro insists that he can no longer be prosecuted for the same criminal charge without violating the rule against double jeopardy.
The Issue Raised
The ultimate issue to be resolved is whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion and exceeded its, or acted without, jurisdiction when it acquitted Ysidoro of the crime charged.
The Courts
Ruling
We
first resolve the preliminary issue raised by Ysidoro on the timeliness of the
Peoples petition for certiorari. The records show that the motion for
reconsideration was filed by the People before the Sandiganbayan on the last day
of the 15-day reglementary period to file the motion which fell on
Nevertheless, we dismiss the petitions for
being procedurally and substantially infirm.
A Review of
a Judgment of Acquittal
Generally, the Rules provides
three (3) procedural remedies in order for a party to appeal a decision of a
trial court in a criminal case before this Court. The
first is by ordinary appeal under Section 3, Rule 122 of the 2000 Revised Rules
on Criminal Procedure. The second is by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules. And
the third is by filing a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. Each procedural remedy is unique and provides for
a different mode of review. In addition, each procedural remedy may only be
availed of depending on the nature of the judgment sought to be reviewed.
A review by ordinary appeal resolves factual and
legal issues. Issues which have not been
properly raised by the parties but are, nevertheless, material in the
resolution of the case are also resolved in this mode of review. In contrast, a
review on certiorari under a Rule 45
petition is generally limited to the review of legal issues; the Court only resolves
questions of law which have been properly raised by the parties during the appeal
and in the petition. Under this mode, the Court determines whether a proper
application of the law was made in a given set of facts. A Rule 65 review, on
the other hand, is strictly confined to the determination of the propriety of
the trial courts jurisdiction whether it has jurisdiction over the case and
if so, whether the exercise of its jurisdiction has or has not been attended by
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
While an assailed judgment
elevated by way of ordinary appeal or a Rule 45 petition is considered an
intrinsically valid, albeit erroneous, judgment, a judgment assailed under Rule
65 is characterized as an invalid judgment because of defect in the trial courts
authority to rule. Also, an ordinary appeal and a Rule 45 petition tackle
errors committed by the trial court in the appreciation of the evidence and/or the
application of law. In contrast, a Rule 65 petition resolves jurisdictional
errors committed in the proceedings in the principal case. In other words, errors
of judgment are the proper subjects of an ordinary appeal and in a Rule 45
petition; errors of jurisdiction are addressed in a Rule 65 petition.
As applied to judgments
rendered in criminal cases, unlike a review via
a Rule 65 petition, only judgments of conviction can be reviewed in an ordinary
appeal or a Rule 45 petition. As we explained in People v. Nazareno,[18] the constitutional right of the accused
against double jeopardy proscribes appeals of judgments of acquittal through
the remedies of ordinary appeal and a Rule 45 petition, thus:
The Constitution
has expressly adopted the double jeopardy policy and thus bars multiple
criminal trials, thereby conclusively presuming that a second trial would
be unfair if the innocence of the accused has been confirmed by a previous
final judgment. Further prosecution via an appeal from
a judgment of acquittal is likewise barred because the government has already
been afforded a complete opportunity to prove the criminal defendants
culpability; after failing to persuade the court to enter a final judgment of
conviction, the underlying reasons supporting the constitutional ban on
multiple trials applies and becomes compelling. The reason is not only the defendants
already established innocence at the first trial where he had been placed in
peril of conviction, but also the same untoward and prejudicial consequences of
a second trial initiated by a government who has at its disposal all the powers
and resources of the State. Unfairness and prejudice would
necessarily result, as the government would then be allowed another opportunity
to persuade a second trier of the defendants guilt while strengthening any
weaknesses that had attended the first trial, all in a process where the
governments power and resources are once again employed against the
defendants individual means. That the second opportunity
comes via an appeal does not make the effects any less
prejudicial by the standards of reason, justice and conscience.[19] (emphases supplied)
However, the rule against
double jeopardy cannot be properly invoked in a Rule 65 petition, predicated on
two (2) exceptional grounds, namely: in a judgment of acquittal rendered with
grave abuse of discretion by the court; and where the prosecution had been
deprived of due process.[20]
The rule against double jeopardy does
not apply in these instances because a Rule 65 petition does not involve a review of facts and law on the
merits in the manner done in an appeal. In certiorari proceedings,
judicial review does not examine and assess the evidence of the parties nor weigh
the probative value of the evidence.[21] It does not
include an inquiry on the correctness of the evaluation of the evidence.[22] A review under Rule 65 only asks the question of whether
there has been a validly rendered decision, not the question of whether the
decision is legally correct.[23] In other words, the focus of the review is to determine whether the judgment is per se void on jurisdictional
grounds.[24]
Applying these legal concepts to this case, we
find that while the People was procedurally correct in filing its petition for certiorari under Rule 65, the petition
does not raise any jurisdictional error committed by the Sandiganbayan. On the contrary, what is clear is the obvious
attempt by the People to have the evidence in the case reviewed by the Court
under the guise of a Rule 65 petition. This much can be deduced by examining
the petition itself which does not allege any bias, partiality or bad faith committed
by the Sandiganbayan in its proceedings. The petition does not also raise any denial of
the Peoples due process in the proceedings before the Sandiganbayan.
We observe, too, that the
grounds relied in the petition relate to factual errors of judgment which are
more appropriate in an ordinary appeal rather than in a Rule 65 petition. The
grounds cited in the petition call for the Courts own appreciation of the
factual findings of the Sandiganbayan on the sufficiency of the Peoples evidence
in proving the element of bad faith, and the sufficiency of the evidence
denying productivity bonus to Doller.
The Merits
of the Case
Our consideration of the
imputed errors fails to establish grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction committed by the Sandiganbayan. As a rule, misapplication of
facts and evidence, and erroneous conclusions based on evidence do not, by the
mere fact that errors were committed, rise to the level of grave abuse of
discretion.[25] That
an abuse itself must be grave must be amply demonstrated since the
jurisdiction of the court, no less, will be affected.[26] We have
previously held that the mere fact, too, that a court erroneously decides a
case does not necessarily deprive it of jurisdiction.[27]
Jurisprudence
has defined grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
in this wise:
Grave abuse of discretion is defined as capricious or whimsical
exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of
discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive
duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all
in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and
despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.[28]
Under
this definition, the People bears the burden of convincingly demonstrating that
the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in the appreciation of the
evidence. We find that the People failed in this regard.
We
find no
indication from the records that the Sandiganbayan acted arbitrarily,
capriciously and whimsically in arriving at its verdict of acquittal. The settled rule is that conviction ensues only if every
element of the crime was alleged and proved.[29] In this case, Ysidoro was acquitted by the Sandiganbayan
for two reasons: first, his bad faith (an element of the crime charged) was not
sufficiently proven by the prosecution evidence; and second, there was exculpatory evidence of his good faith.
As bad faith is a state of
mind, the prosecution must present evidence of the overt acts or omissions
committed by Ysidoro showing that he deliberately intended to do wrong or cause
damage to Doller by withholding her RATA. However, save from the testimony of
Doller of the strained relationship between her and Ysidoro, no other evidence
was presented to support Ysidoros bad faith against her. We note that Doller even
disproved Ysidoros bad faith when she admitted that several cases had been actually
filed against her before the Office of the Ombudsman. It bears stressing that
these purported anomalies were allegedly committed in office which Ysidoro cited
to justify the withholding of Dollers RATA.
The records also show other
acts that tend to negate Ysidoros bad faith under the circumstances. First, the investigation of the alleged
anomalies by Ysidoro was corroborated by the physical transfer of Doller and
her subordinates to the Office of the Mayor and the prohibition against outside
travel imposed on Doller. Second, the
existence of the Ombudsmans cases against Doller. And third, Ysidoros act of seeking an opinion from the COA Auditor on
the proper interpretation of Section 317 of the Government Accounting and
Auditing Manual before he withheld the RATA. This section provides:
An official/employee who was wrongly removed or prevented from
performing his duties is entitled to back salaries but not RATA. The rationale
for the grant of RATA is to provide the official concerned additional fund to
meet necessary expenses incidental to and connected with the exercise or the
discharge of the functions of an office. If he is out of office, [voluntarily]
or involuntarily, it necessarily follows that the functions of the office
remain undischarged (COA, Dec. 1602, October 23, 1990). And if the duties of
the office are not discharged, the official does not and is not supposed to
incur expenses. There being no expenses incurred[,] there is nothing to be
reimbursed (COA, Dec. 2121 dated June 28, 1979).[30]
Although the above provision
was erroneously interpreted by Ysidoro and the COA Auditor, the totality of the
evidence, to our mind, provides sufficient grounds to create reasonable doubt
on Ysidoros bad faith. As we have held before, bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence but
imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a
wrong or a breach of a sworn duty through some motive or intent, or ill-will to
partake the nature of fraud.[31] An
erroneous interpretation of a provision of law, absent any showing of some
dishonest or wrongful purpose, does not constitute and does not necessarily
amount to bad faith.[32]
Similarly, we find no
inference of bad faith when Doller failed to receive the productivity bonus. Doller
does not dispute that the receipt of the productivity bonus was premised on the
submission by the employee of his/her Performance Evaluation Report. In this case, Doller admitted that she did not
submit her Performance Evaluation Report; hence, she could not have reasonably
expected to receive any productivity bonus. Further, we cannot agree with her
self-serving claim that it was Ysidoros refusal that led to her failure to receive
her productivity bonus given that no other hard evidence supported this claim. We
certainly cannot rely on Dollers assertion of the alleged statement made by one
Leo Apacible (Ysidoros secretary) who was not presented in court. The alleged statement made by Leo Apacible that
the mayor will get angry with him and he
might be laid off,[33]
in addition to being hearsay, did not
even establish the actual existence of an order from Ysidoro or of his alleged maneuverings
to deprive Doller of her RATA and productivity bonus.
In light of these considerations, we resolve to dismiss the
Peoples petition. We cannot review a verdict of acquittal which does not impute
or show any jurisdictional error committed by the Sandiganbayan.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
Court hereby resolves to:
1.
DISMISS the petition for certiorari and prohibition, docketed as
G.R. No. 171513, filed by Arnold James M. Ysidoro for being moot and academic.
2.
DISMISS the petition for certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 190963, filed by the People of the
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
JOSE Associate Justice |
MARIA Associate Justice |
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, G.R. No. 171513, pp. 14-16.
[2]
[3] Rollo, G.R. No. 190963, pp. 42-50.
[4]
[5] Rollo, G.R. No. 171513, p. 20.
[6]
[7]
[8] Supra note 2, at 18.
[9] Rollo, G.R. No. 190963, p. 43.
[10] They are: (1) Lolita Retorbar, Welfare Aide assigned at the Department of Social Welfare and Development, Leyte, Leyte; (2) Cristina Polinio, Youth Development Officer II, Municipal Social Welfare Office, Leyte, Leyte; (3) Dennis Q. Abellar, Human Resource Management Officer IV, Leyte, Leyte; (4) Ethel G. Mercolita, Municipal Accountant for the year 2000-2001, Leyte, Leyte; (5) Elsie M. Retorbar, Barangay Daycare worker, Leyte, Leyte; and (6) Domingo M. Elises, former Municipal Budget Officer, Leyte, Leyte.
[11] Supra note 3.
[12]
[13] Supra note 4.
[14]
[15] Rollo, G.R. No. 190963, pp. 20-24,
[16]
[17]
[18]
G.R. No. 168982,
[19]
[20] Galman v. Sandiganbayan, 228 Phil. 42, 87 (1986).
[21] People v. Sandiganbayan (First Division), G.R. No. 173396, September 22, 2010, 631 SCRA 128, 133, citing First Corporation v. Former Sixth Division of the Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 171989, July 4, 2007, 526 SCRA 564.
[22]
[23] People v. Nazareno, supra note 18, at 451
[24] Ibid.
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
Marcelo G. Ganaden, et al. v.
The Hon. Court of Appeals, et al.,
G.R. Nos. 170500 and
170510-11,
[30] Rollo,
G.R. No. 190963, p. 47.
[31] Sampiano. v. Indar, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1953, December 21, 2009, 608 SCRA 597, 613.
[32] Cabungcal, et al. v. Cordova, et al., 120 Phil. 567, 572-573, (1964) insofar as it applies mutatis mutandis.
[33] Rollo, G.R. No. 190963, p. 26.