G.R. No. 50147 - Ansaldo vs. Tantuico, Jr.

Petitioner: Cynthia G. Moreno, former mayor of Aloguinsan, Cebu, convicted of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) together with several co-accused in Sandiganbayan Criminal Case No. SB-10-CRM-0236.
Respondents: Sandiganbayan (First Division) and the People of the Philippines; petition filed as G.R. No. 256070 seeking certiorari under Rule 65 to annul Sandiganbayan Resolutions dated December 17, 2020 and March 9, 2021.

June 5, 2014 — Sandiganbayan found petitioner and co-accused guilty under Section 3(e), sentenced to indeterminate term of six (6) years and one (1) month to ten (10) years, with perpetual disqualification from public office.
August 28, 2014 — Sandiganbayan denied joint motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.
December 1, 2014 and November 9, 2015 — The Supreme Court denied petition for review on certiorari (G.R. No. 214117) and subsequent motion for reconsideration; petitions unsuccessful.
January 9, 2017 and March 24, 2017 — Sandiganbayan denied Petition for Relief from Judgment and denied reconsideration; Supreme Court affirmed those denials in G.R. No. 230823 on June 5, 2017.
June 25, 2019 — Petitioner’s conviction attained finality.

December 2, 2020 — Petitioner filed a Motion to Serve Sentence Under Home Care/House Arrest requesting to serve sentence at Lunhaw Farm Resort (Aloguinsan, Cebu) under direct supervision of BJMP or DOJ probation officers, with counsel on recognizance; asserted health vulnerability (including COVID-19 risk) as basis.
December 17, 2020 — Sandiganbayan denied the Motion for lack of relevant evidence (no medical records or physician’s report) and on the ground that “home care/house arrest” is not provided by the Rules of Criminal Procedure or applicable law; reference made to Articles 78 and 86 RPC as prescribing where sentences must be served.
Petitioner filed Motion for Reconsideration; March 9, 2021 — Sandiganbayan denied reconsideration as filed out of time under the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases (A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC), holding the 5-day non-extendible period applied and that petitioner’s circumstances differ from prior Sandiganbayan grants of house/hospital arrest to former presidents, and that Paderanga was inapposite.
Petitioner filed Rule 65 certiorari before the Supreme Court seeking annulment of the two Sandiganbayan Resolutions.

Petitioner’s contentions: Continuous Trial Guidelines do not govern post-conviction motions; 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Court should govern (i.e., Section 1, Rule 52 — 15-day period for motions for reconsideration of judgments/final resolutions); Motion is a litigious motion under Section 5, Rule 15 (2019 Rules) and thus should have been set for hearing and decided on evidence; constitutional right to health (Article II, Section 15) should permit alternative confinement given COVID-19.
Respondent People’s contentions: Denial proper because conviction is final and penalty cannot be modified; Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion; no constitutional or legal basis for requested relief; allowance would violate equal protection and recognizance is unavailable to those whose conviction is final.

Articles 78 and 86, Revised Penal Code (RPC) — prescribe manner and place for execution of penalties.
Article 88a, RPC (as amended by RA 11362, Community Service Act) — allows community service in lieu of jail for arresto menor and arresto mayor under court discretion.
A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC (Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases) — Part III, Section 2(c) on meritorious/unmeritorious motions and 5-day non-extendible period for reconsideration of resolution of a meritorious motion.
Paderanga v. Court of Appeals (317 Phil. 862, 1995) and People v. Napoles (G.R. No. 247611, Resolution, Jan. 13, 2021) — cases cited by petitioner and respondents for various propositions.
RA 10389 (Recognizance Act of 2012) — defines recognizance and scope.

Whether the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioner’s Motion to serve sentence under home care/house arrest and in denying the motion for reconsideration.
Whether the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases (A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC) apply to post-conviction motions such as petitioner’s Motion, and whether the 5-day non-extendible period for filing a motion for reconsideration of a meritorious motion applies.

Whether petitioner’s request to serve a prision mayor sentence (6 years and 1 month to 10 years) under home care/house arrest or by recognizance has legal support under the RPC, the Community Service Act (RA 11362), or other laws.
Whether petitioner’s claim of health vulnerability (including COVID-19 risk) justifies altering the legally prescribed place/manner of serving sentence or warrants provisional release/recognizance.
Whether judicial precedents cited by petitioner (e.g., Paderanga) support serving a sentence outside penal institutions due to health reasons.