Case Digest (G.R. No. 256070)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 256070)
Facts:
Cynthia G. Moreno v. Sandiganbayan [First Division] and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 256070, September 19, 2022, Supreme Court Third Division, Inting, J., writing for the Court (Caguioa, Chairperson, Gaerlan, Dimaampao, and Singh, JJ., concur.).Petitioner Cynthia G. Moreno, a former and incumbent mayor of Aloguinsan, Cebu, was indicted with several co-accused for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) in Sandiganbayan Criminal Case No. SB-10-CRM-0236. On June 5, 2014, the Sandiganbayan found all accused guilty and imposed an indeterminate sentence of six years and one month as minimum to ten years as maximum, with perpetual disqualification from public office; the Sandiganbayan denied their motion for reconsideration on August 28, 2014.
Petitioner and co-accused sought relief before this Court via a Rule 45 petition docketed as G.R. No. 214117 (denied December 1, 2014; reconsideration denied November 9, 2015). They later filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment in the Sandiganbayan (denied January 9, 2017; reconsideration denied March 24, 2017) and again brought a Rule 45 petition to the Court in G.R. No. 230823 (denied and Sandiganbayan resolutions affirmed on June 5, 2017). Petitioner’s conviction attained finality on June 25, 2019.
On December 2, 2020, petitioner filed a Motion to Serve Sentence Under Home Care/House Arrest requesting to serve her sentence at Lunhaw Farm Resort in Aloguinsan, Cebu, under alleged monitoring by BJMP or Department of Justice probation officers and with her counsel on recognizance. The Sandiganbayan, in a Resolution dated December 17, 2020, denied the Motion for lack of supporting medical evidence and because “home care/house arrest” is not provided for by law or the Rules; it relied on Articles 78 and 86 of the Revised Penal Code and noted Article 88a (community service) does not authorize the requested relief. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the Sandiganbayan on March 9, 2021 as filed out of time under the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases (A.M. No. 5-06-10). The Sandiganbayan also distinguished prior exceptional grants to former Presidents and the Court’s decision in Paderanga v. Court of Appeals (constructive custody in bail context) as inapplicable.
Petitioner filed this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to annul the Sandiganbayan’s December 17, 2020 and March 9, 2021 Resolutions denying her Motion and Motion for Reconsideration respectively.
Issues:
- Did the Sandiganbayan commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioner’s Motion to serve her sentence under home care/house arrest?
- Does the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases (A.M. No. 5-06-10) govern post‑conviction motions and the timeliness of motions for reconsideration, or does Section 1, Rule 52 of the 2019 Rules of Court (15-day period) apply instead?
- On the merits, was petitioner entitled to serve her sentence under home care/house arrest or be released on recognizance because of health risks (including risk of COVID-19)?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)