G.R. No. 217874 - Her vs. Sandiganbayan

Case Summary (G.R. No. 217874)

Factual Background

Petitioner was employed by the Department of Transportation and Communication, Cordillera Administrative Region, in Baguio City, initially as an accounting clerk and later as Supervising Fiscal Clerk assigned cashier, disbursement and collection duties. COA auditors examined petitioner’s cash accounts on December 17, 1996 and found deposit slips dated September 19, 1996 and November 29, 1996 for P11,300.00 and P81,348.20 that bore no bank acknowledgment or machine validation. COA verification with the Land Bank of the Philippines showed no record of a P11,300.00 deposit on September 19, 1996 for the DOTC account, and the LBP inquiry revealed that the only deposit that date credited to DOTC was from its Ifugao office.

Information and Criminal Charge

On the strength of the COA findings, the Office of the Ombudsman recommended indictment and an Information was filed in the RTC charging petitioner with malversation for the alleged failure to remit P11,300.00 collected for deposit to the DOTC account, contrary to law. The Information alleged that petitioner, as an accountable public officer, received and collected the sum and misappropriated or, through negligence, permitted others to take it.

Trial Court Proceedings

Petitioner pleaded not guilty at arraignment and proceeded to trial. The prosecution presented the testimony of two COA auditors and three LBP employees who testified to the absence of the deposit in bank records and to the irregularities in the deposit slips. Petitioner testified in her own behalf asserting that she and her supervisor, Cecilia Paraiso, personally deposited P11,300.00 with LBP teller Catalina Ngaosi, that she had left the money with the teller and later retrieved several copies of the deposit slip which lacked machine validation, and that she stored the slip in her vault until the COA audit. Paraiso did not testify.

RTC Conviction and Penalty

The RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of malversation and imposed an indeterminate sentence under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, fixing the sentence in terms reflected in the RTC decision and ordering restitution of P11,300.00 with legal interest and perpetual special disqualification. The RTC concluded that petitioner failed to satisfactorily explain the disappearance of the funds and that her account of events did not rebut the presumption of malversation.

Intermediate Appeals and Sandiganbayan Review

Petitioner improperly appealed first to the Court of Appeals, which ultimately held it lacked jurisdiction and indicated the Sandiganbayan had exclusive appellate jurisdiction. Petitioner then appealed to the Sandiganbayan, which, in a November 13, 2009 Decision, affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and applied a lower interest rate. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which the Sandiganbayan denied in a Resolution dated August 31, 2010; that denial matured into finality and was recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments on June 26, 2013.

Motions to Reopen, Entry of Judgment, and Subsequent Resolutions

After the entry of judgment became final, petitioner, through new counsel, filed an Urgent Motion to Reopen the Case with Leave of Court and a Petition for Reconsideration with Prayer for Recall of Entry of Judgment. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion to reopen in its December 4, 2013 Resolution for lack of the requisites prescribed by Section 24, Rule 119, and it denied the subsequent petition for reconsideration in a February 2, 2015 Resolution as a prohibited successive motion under Section 5, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court.

Petition for Certiorari and Issues Presented

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court seeking reversal of the Sandiganbayan Resolutions of December 4, 2013 and February 2, 2015, the reopening of the case for additional evidence, and the recall of the Entry of Judgment dated June 26, 2013. The petition principally argued that petitioner’s former counsel did not receive notice of the August 31, 2010 Resolution due to an erroneous mailing address and that newly discovered evidence, including an affidavit and deposit slips, would prevent a miscarriage of justice.

Petitioner’s Contentions

Petitioner claimed that counsel’s alleged nonreceipt of the August 31, 2010 Resolution rendered the entry of judgment premature and excused the delay in seeking relief. Petitioner further asserted that additional evidence, unavailable at trial, would show that the P11,300.00 deposit was made by petitioner and not by another person, and that the Sandiganbayan’s characterization of her motions as successive and prohibited was unjust because the new evidence was newly discovered and could avert a miscarriage.

Respondent’s Position and Procedural Objections

The Office of the Special Prosecutor and the Sandiganbayan argued that the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was improper because the Resolutions assailed were final orders and the correct remedy was a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. They maintained that petitioner and her counsel neglected to inform the court of the change of address, that petitioner waited almost three years from the denial of reconsideration before moving to reopen, and that the requisites for reopening under Section 24, Rule 119 were absent because the judgment had become final.

The Court’s Analysis on Appropriate Remedy and Finality

The Court held that certiorari under Rule 65 was an improper remedy because the Sandiganbayan Resolutions were final orders disposing of the proceedings and were therefore reviewable by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The Court nonetheless proceeded to resolve the petition on the merits and emphasized the doctrine that parties and their counsel must give proper and adequate notice of any change of address; absent such notice, service at the counsel’s last recorded address is effective. The Court distinguished People v. Chavez where nonreceipt was not attributable to counsel’s negligence, finding here that petitioner shared responsibility for the failure of notice and had even admitted receiving the resolution sometime in September or October 2010.

The Court’s Analysis on Reopening and the Requisites of Section 24, Rule 119

The Court reviewed the requisites for reopening specified in Section 24, Rule 119 and concluded that the critical first requisite — that reopening must occur before the finality of the judgment — was not satisfied because the Sandiganbayan’s August 31, 2010 Resolution had become final and was recorded in the Entries of Judgments on June 26, 2013. The Court further observed that petitioner’s belated motion to reopen appeared to substitute for a lost appellate remedy and that the evidence she sought to introduce should have been presented at trial before the RTC, which is the proper forum to receive evidence.

The Court’s Analysis on the Merits of the Malversation Conviction

The Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s conclusion that petitioner failed to rebut the presumption under Article 217, Revised Penal Code that an accountable public officer who cannot account for public funds has misappropriated them. The Court emphasized that the absence of petitioner's supervisor’s testimony, petitioner’s inability to satisfactorily explain the missing funds, and the unvalidated deposit slips all supported conviction. The Court reiterated established doctrine that a public officer may be held liable for malversation even if another person actually misappropriated the funds, because consent, abandonment, or negligence by the accountable officer suffices.

Application of R.A. No. 10951 and Modification of Penalty

Although the Court denied the petition, it found exceptional circumstances warranting limited reopening to correct the penalty i

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 217874)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Petitioner was a supervising fiscal clerk and designated cashier, disbursement and collection officer of the Department of Transportation and Communications, Cordillera Administrative Region.
Respondent is the Sandiganbayan, whose 2nd Division affirmed petitioner’s conviction for malversation and denied subsequent motions to reopen and for reconsideration.
The trial court convicted petitioner of malversation and imposed a prison term and restitution, which the Sandiganbayan later affirmed with modification.
Petitioner sought relief by way of a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, Rules of Court, challenging the Sandiganbayan’s Resolutions dated December 4, 2013 and February 2, 2015.
The Supreme Court, peruta v. Peralta, J., acted en banc and denied the petition but recalled the Entry of Judgment to modify the penalty in view of subsequent legislation.

Key Factual Allegations

Petitioner handled cash collections for telegraphic transfers, toll fees, and special message fees and deposited collections to the DOTC account at the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), Baguio City Branch.
A COA cash examination in December 1996 revealed deposit slips dated September 19 and November 29, 1996 showing P11,300.00 and P81,348.20 respectively without bank receipt stamps or machine validation.
LBP inquiries established that the bank had no record of a P11,300.00 deposit credited to the DOTC account on the date in question.
Petitioner accounted for the P81,348.20 remittance but failed to account for the P11,300.00 remittance.
Petitioner alleged she handed P11,300.00 to the teller Catalina Ngaosi, left to retrieve the deposit slip later, and obtained unvalidated deposit-slip copies upon return.

Trial and Evidence

The prosecution presented testimony from two COA auditors and three LBP employees, including the resident auditor and the teller involved.
The defense offered the solitary testimony of petitioner claiming the deposit was made and alleging mishandling by the bank teller.
The complaint for estafa filed by petitioner against bank personnel was dismissed.
The trial court found the prosecution established that petitioner received P11,300.00, lacked the funds when demanded, and could not satisfactorily explain their absence.

Procedural History

The RTC, Branch 7, Baguio City, rendered judgment of conviction dated June 28, 2002.
An errant appeal was first taken to the Court of Appeals, which later recognized lack of jurisdiction and referred the appeal to the Sandiganbayan.
The Sandiganbayan issued its Decision on November 13, 2009 affirming conviction but modifying the penalty.
The Sandiganbayan denied a Motion for Reconsideration on August 31, 2010, and its denial became final and was recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments on June 26, 2013.
Petitioner filed motions in July 2013 and January 2014 seeking to reopen the case and recall the Entry of Judgment; the Sandiganbayan denied them in Resolutions dated December 4, 2013 and February 2, 2015.
Petitioner filed the instant Rule 65 petition in the Supreme Court which was resolved by the Court on December 5, 2017.

Issues Presented

Whether the resort to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was proper to assail the Sandiganbayan’s denials of motions to reopen and for reconsideration.
Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying the motion to reopen for reception of additional evidence.
Whether petitioner’s non-receipt of the August 31, 2010 Resolution due to counsel’s change of address excused the delay and rendered the Entry of Judgment premature.
Whether the final judgment could be reopened to apply the more lenient penalties under R.A. No. 10951.

Contentions of the Parties

Petitioner contended that extraordinary circumstances justified reopening the case for additional evidence and that counsel did not receive notice of the August 31, 2010 Resolution due to an erroneous service address.
Petitioner sought application of relaxed rules and remand for further reception of evidence, including an affidavit and deposit