Case Digest (G.R. No. L-69422)
Facts:
Domiciano Cabigao, Nestor Domacena, Rolando Doblado, Ernesto Pampuan, Edgardo Prado, Romeo Dominico, Rodolfo Erese, Ramon Garcia, and Carlos Pacheco v. The Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 69422; G.R. No. 69960, May 29, 1987, the Supreme Court En Banc, Gutierrez, Jr., J., writing for the Court.The petitioners (appellants below) were accused in an information charging conspiracy to commit murder with multiple counts of frustrated and attempted murder arising from a February 26, 1980 incident at Sitio Aluag, Barangay Sta. Barbara, Iba, Zambales in which occupants of a jeep were shot; one victim, Amante C. Payumo, died and several others suffered grievous injuries. The information included both public officers (members of the Integrated National Police) and civilians; several accused were later excluded pursuant to Section 4, paragraph 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended.
The Sandiganbayan (trial court) convicted the petitioners on October 10, 1984 and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua with accessory penalties and awards of indemnity and actual damages. A motion for reconsideration was denied on December 10, 1984. The petitioners obtained an extension of time to file a petition for review with the Supreme Court; while that extension was in effect they filed a motion for new trial with the Sandiganbayan (Jan. 11, 1985) invoking newly discovered evidence (Rule 121, Sec. 2[b], Rules of Court) and denial of procedural due process. The Sandiganbayan on January 31, 1985 declined to act on the motion for new trial, ruling it lacked jurisdiction because the Supreme Court had assumed jurisdiction when the extension was granted.
The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 69960) challenging the Sandiganbayan's refusal to act; that certiorari petition was denied April 30, 1985 (reconsideration denied June 4, 1985). The main petition for review on certiorari (G.R. No. 69422) was filed July 1, 1985 and later supplemented (Nov. 19, 1985); the petition included a November 7, 1985 request that the motion for new trial be resolved. Among the assignments of error were: (a) denial of the motion for new trial; (b) deprivation of equal protection by the Sandiganbayan taking cognizance of and convicting the petitioners; and (c) frequent and successive changes in the composition of the Sandiganbayan Second Division during trial in alleged violation of Section 3, Rule VIII of Presidential Decree No. 1606, which the petitioners argued tainted the proceedings.
The record showed frequent substitutions among the three justices who tried Criminal Case No. 4219; Justice Romeo M. Escareal sat consistently as Chairman, but membership rotated repeatedly over the course of hearings. The Solicitor General urged that such rotation risked depriving accused of the benefit of having the same three justices hear and decide the case and stressed the Sandiganbayan’s sensitive fact-finding role, given that its decisions are reviewed by the Supreme Court only. The Sandiganbayan defended its practice by citing the statutory scheme under P.D. 1486 as amended by P.D. 1606 and P.D. 1629 and the implementing Sandiganbayan Rules which permit temporary designations by the President only when a quorum cannot be had.
On the merits of the motion for new trial, the Court considered allegations and newly surfaced evidence: that Philippine Constabulary soldiers who led the operation and fired at the group were never tried; that the fiscal had origi...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Sandiganbayan lose jurisdiction to act on the petitioners' motion for new trial when the Supreme Court granted an extension of time to file a petition for review, rendering the Sandiganbayan's denial for lack of jurisdiction improper?
- Did the frequent changes in the composition of the Sandiganbayan Second Division during trial violate Section 3, Rule VIII of P.D. 1606 (as amended) and warrant setting aside the conviction?
- Should the petitioners' motion for new trial be granted on the basis of newly discovered evidence and the other factua...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)