Case Digest (G.R. No. 217874)
Facts:
Ophelia Hernan v. The Honorable Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 217874, December 05, 2017, the Supreme Court En Banc, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Ophelia Hernan was an accounting clerk (later Supervising Fiscal Clerk and designated cashier, disbursement and collection officer) of the Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC), Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR) in Baguio City. In 1996 she handled cash and collections that were to be deposited into the DOTC account at the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP). A Commission on Audit (COA) cash examination in December 1996 discovered two deposit slips (dated September 19, 1996 and November 29, 1996) for P11,300.00 and P81,348.20 which bore no bank machine validation or acknowledgement stamps; COA verification with LBP revealed no deposit for P11,300.00. COA demanded payment; petitioner refused and was charged with malversation before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Baguio City (Criminal Case No. 15722‑R).
At trial the prosecution presented COA auditors and LBP employees who testified that the bank had no record of the P11,300.00 deposit credited to DOTC; petitioner testified she and her supervisor Cecilia Paraiso personally deposited P11,300.00 with teller Catalina Ngaosi, retrieved deposit‑slip copies lacking machine validation, and later discovered the amount was not credited. The RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced her to a term of imprisonment and ordered restitution of P11,300.00 plus interest.
Petitioner erroneously appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA); the CA later set aside its decision for lack of jurisdiction and the case was properly appealed to the Sandiganbayan, which in a Decision dated November 13, 2009 affirmed the RTC’s conviction but modified the penalty and interest. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Dec. 21, 2009) which the Sandiganbayan denied in a Resolution dated August 31, 2010. That Resolution became final and was recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments on June 26, 2013.
On July 12, 2013 petitioner’s new counsel filed an Urgent Motion to Reopen the Case with Prayer to Stay Execution; the Sandiganbayan denied it in a Resolution dated December 4, 2013 for failure to comply with the requirements to reopen a case under Section 24, Rule 119. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Reconsideration with Prayer for Recall of Entry of Judgment (Jan. 9, 2014), which the Sandiganbayan denied in a Resolution dated February 2, 2015 as a prohibited second/third motion for reconsideration under Section 5, Rule 37. Petitioner then filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 on May 14, 2015 seeking reversal of those Sandiganbayan orders, reopening of the case to receive additional evidence (including an affidavit and deposit slips), and recall of the Entry of Judgment.
The Office of the Special Prosecutor argued the remedy was improper because the Sandiganbayan’s resolutions were final (making Rule 45 the appropriate remedy), and defended the Sandiganbayan’s findings on timeliness, counsel’s failure to notify the court of changed address, the requirements to reopen, and that petitioner’s proffered evidence could and should have been offered earlier. The Supreme Court found the Rule 65 petition improper but, assuming arguendo its consid...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 the proper remedy to assail the Sandiganbayan Resolutions dated December 4, 2013 and February 2, 2015?
- Did the Sandiganbayan commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motions to reopen and reconsider, considering (a) alleged failure of counsel to receive notice of the August 31, 2010 Resolution, and (b) petitioner’s proffer of additional evidence?
- Were petitioner’s July 12, 2013 and January 9, 2014 pleadings properly treated as prohibited second and third motions for reconsideration under Section 5, Rule 37?
- Should the final judgment and Entry of Judgment be reopened and the sentence modified in lig...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)