G.R. No. 100728 - JovellaNo.vs. Court of Appeals

The Mayor of Tagbilaran City, Jose V. Torralba, designated his secretary, Panfilo D. Bongcac (petitioner), with multiple roles:

This appointment positioned the petitioner in a role that involved oversight and representations in market-related matters.

In January 1991, respondents Engr. Fortunato Lim and Toribio Bon applied for stalls (tiendas) in the Cogon Public Market.
The respondents were referred to the petitioner based on his designation, and he showed them the Minutes of the City Market Committee meeting held on 9 January 1991, which recorded them as awardees of the market stalls.

The petitioner informed Lim and Bon that due to the city government’s inability to construct a new market, an alternative was available:

The respondents were asked to provide additional money for the construction of the stalls.

Lim issued and delivered a BPI check payable to cash amounting to ₱62,000.
Bon issued and delivered two Metrobank checks payable to cash, totaling ₱40,000 (₱30,000 and ₱10,000).

Petitioner issued handwritten receipts for the payments and made promises regarding completion:

Assured Lim that his stall would be finished on or before 30 June 1991.
Promised Bon that his stall would be completed before the fiesta in Tagbilaran City.

After the encashment of the checks, Lim and Bon discovered via a local newspaper (30 June 1991 issue) that the petitioner had been “sacked” as market body consultant and terminated as secretary to the Mayor.
Both respondents sought an explanation, demanding either an accounting of the money received or the completion of the construction of the stalls.
The petitioner failed to deliver either an accounting or the constructed stalls.

Petitioner was charged with two counts of Estafa under Article 315, 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
The cases, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 18005 and 18006, proceeded with an arraignment where the petitioner pleaded not guilty.
On 28 March 2001, the Fourth Division of the Sandiganbayan rendered judgment finding petitioner guilty on both counts:

In Criminal Case No. 18005, he was sentenced to a penalty of prision correccional to prision mayor, with an indemnification order for ₱54,000 and ₱10,000 as attorney’s fees.
In Criminal Case No. 18006, he was similarly found guilty with a corresponding sentence and an indemnification order for ₱35,000.

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the Sandiganbayan’s 28 March 2001 Decision was denied on 3 September 2001.
A petition for review on certiorari was subsequently filed before the Court in G.R. Nos. 149711-12, which was denied on 20 February 2002, and became final and executory on 2 April 2002.

On 4 December 2002, the Sandiganbayan issued notice for the execution of judgment.
On 26 December 2002, the petitioner filed a Very Urgent Petition for Extraordinary Relief with the Court, seeking to reverse the Sandiganbayan decision and acquire an acquittal.
Concurrently, he filed a Manifestation and a Very Urgent Motion to Suspend Further Proceedings with the Sandiganbayan to delay the execution of judgment.
On 10 January 2003, the Sandiganbayan denied this motion and ordered the issuance of a bench warrant of arrest, canceling the cash bail bond.
On 3 March 2003, the Court denied the Very Urgent Petition for Extraordinary Relief in G.R. Nos. 149711-12.
The petitioner then filed the present petition for certiorari and prohibition, seeking:

The People of the Philippines and respondent Lim filed comments opposing the petitioner’s motions.
Lim argued that:

The petition was filed beyond the reglementary period of 60 days.
The Very Urgent Petition for Extraordinary Relief was not sanctioned by the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The motions were dilatory in nature and intended solely to delay the execution of the final judgment.

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction by denying petitioner’s motion to suspend further proceedings and the execution of the final judgment.
Whether the petitioner’s series of motions and the filing of a Very Urgent Petition for Extraordinary Relief—after the final and executory nature of the Sandiganbayan’s judgment—constitute dilatory tactics intended to forestall the execution of a final judgment.
Whether the cancellation of the petitioner’s cash bail bond, following the execution of the judgment of conviction, was rightly done pursuant to established criminal procedure rules.