Title
Bongcac vs. Sandiganbayan
Case
G.R. No. 156687-88
Decision Date
May 21, 2009
Petitioner, a former city official, was convicted of Estafa for failing to deliver promised market stalls after collecting funds. His attempts to delay execution of the final judgment were dismissed by the Supreme Court, upholding the principle of finality of judgments.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 100728)

Background of the Incidents

In January 1991, Lim and Bon sought to acquire stalls in the Cogon Public Market and were referred to Bongcac. He presented them with minutes from a City Market Committee meeting that included their names as awardees. However, he suggested that they provide additional financial contributions for the construction of the stalls, which resulted in Lim and Bon issuing checks totaling P102,000. Bongcac issued receipts but failed to deliver the stalls or provide an accounting for the funds. Consequently, Lim and Bon filed complaints, leading to Bongcac facing two counts of Estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.

Judicial Proceedings

Bongcac pleaded not guilty during his arraignment, but the Sandiganbayan found him guilty on 28 March 2001. He was sentenced to a total of over 15 years of imprisonment across both criminal cases and ordered to indemnify Lim and Bon, alongside attorney's fees. Following the verdict, Bongcac filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. He subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court but the petition was dismissed due to lack of merit, leading to the decision becoming final on 2 April 2002.

Attempt to Delay Execution

In December 2002, Bongcac sought to delay the execution of the Sandiganbayan's judgment through a "Very Urgent Petition for Extraordinary Relief," arguing it should be reconsidered. The Sandiganbayan denied his request to suspend the proceedings, resulting in a bench warrant for his arrest. The Supreme Court also dismissed Bongcac's subsequent petitions on the basis of them being dilatory tactics intended to delay the inevitable execution of the final judgment.

Legal Principles Applied

The Supreme Court underscored the immutability of final judgments, stating that execution serves as the ultimate conclusion to a judicial process. Once a judgment becomes final and executory, it cannot be altered or set aside except under specific circumstances, such as clerical corrections or if the judgment is deemed void. The Court reiterated that a

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.