G.R. No. 45554 - People vs. Mabassa

Criminal Case No. 4219 stemmed from a shooting incident on February 26, 1980, at around 5:30 PM in Sitio Aluag, Barangay Sta. Barbara, Iba, Zambales.
A composite team from the Philippine Constabulary (PC) and the Integrated National Police (INP) is alleged to have fired upon a group of civilians, resulting in the death of Amante Payumo and injuries to Teofilo Payumo (Barangay Captain of Sta. Barbara), Edgar Payumo, Reynaldo Ruanto, Crisanto Ruanto, Apolinario Ruanto, and Exequiel Bonde.

The accused indicted before the Sandiganbayan for murder with multiple frustrated and attempted murder were Domiciano Cabigao, Nestor Domacena, Rolando Doblado, Ernesto Pampuan, Edgardo Prado, Romeo Dominico, Ramon Garcia, and Carlos Pacheco. Rodolfo Erese died before arraignment.
The accused pleaded not guilty, raised defenses including lawful performance of duty, self-defense, mistake of fact, and alibi.
The trial lasted four years.

On October 5, 1984, the Sandiganbayan Second Division convicted all accused (except deceased Erese) of murder with multiple frustrated and attempted murder, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua and ordering indemnifications for victims' heirs.
The accused filed for reconsideration which was denied, and subsequently moved for a new trial and appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, in May 1987, granted the petition for review and remanded the case for a new trial, emphasizing that the new trial should be full and complete addressing due process concerns.

The new trial commenced under the Sandiganbayan First Division and subsequently transferred to the Fifth Division after organizational changes.
On November 27, 1998, the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division rendered a 92-page decision convicting the accused of murder with multiple attempted murder, reaffirming reclusion perpetua sentences and increased indemnifications.

The accused filed omnibus motions demanding to set aside the 1998 judgment and for a new trial, citing various alleged irregularities.
The motions were brought before a Special Fifth Division due to lack of unanimity among Fifth Division justices.
On October 24, 2001, the Special Fifth Division, by a 3-2 vote, set aside the November 1998 decision and granted a second new trial.
The majority cited the invalidity of the 1998 judgement promulgation since the ponente, Justice Godofredo T. Legaspi, had been transferred out of the Fifth Division before promulgation, and irregularities due to frequent rotation of justices (“rigodon de jueces”) affecting witnesses’ testimonies.

The petitioners (victims and heirs) alleged grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan in setting aside the 1998 decision and granting a new trial.
They also criticized the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) and Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) for failing in their duty to oppose the motion for new trial.
The Supreme Court consolidated and eventually dismissed related petitions for certiorari except as to the orders entailed.

Several accused persons, including Nestor Domacena, Edgardo Prado, and Romeo Dominico, died during the pendency of proceedings, leading to dismissal of cases against them.

Whether the Sandiganbayan acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in granting the accused’s Omnibus Motion to Set Aside Judgment and for New Trial.
Whether the Sandiganbayan acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in setting aside the November 27, 1998 conviction on the ground that the ponente had already been transferred from the Fifth Division at the time of promulgation.
Whether the Sandiganbayan acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Teofilo Payumo and Edgar Payumo, ruling them tainted by irregularities related to the "rigodon de jueces".
Whether the Sandiganbayan acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the accused to present evidence including the records of investigation conducted by the Office of the Judge Advocate General (JAGO) regarding the February 26, 1980 shooting incident.
Whether the OMB and OSP committed grave abuse of discretion and neglected their duty by not opposing the accused’s Omnibus Motion and subsequent pleadings, thus failing to protect the interests of the State and petitioners.