Title
Moreno vs. Sandiganbayan, 1st Division
Case
G.R. No. 256070
Decision Date
Sep 19, 2022
Former mayor convicted of graft sought house arrest due to health risks and COVID-19, but Supreme Court upheld denial, citing lack of legal basis and untimely filing.
house arrest
poor health condition
legal provisions
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 256070)

Factual Background

On June 5, 2014, the Sandiganbayan found petitioner and her co-accused guilty of violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019. It imposed the indeterminate penalty of six years and one month as minimum to ten years as maximum, and included perpetual disqualification from holding public office. Petitioner and her co-accused sought reconsideration, but the Sandiganbayan denied the joint motion on August 28, 2014 for lack of merit.

Petitioner and her co-accused then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, docketed as G.R. No. 214117, but the Court denied it in a Resolution dated December 1, 2014. A motion for reconsideration was denied with finality on November 9, 2015. Petitioner next filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment in the Sandiganbayan, but the Sandiganbayan denied it in a Resolution dated January 9, 2017, and likewise denied a motion for reconsideration on March 24, 2017.

Petitioner further assailed the Sandiganbayan’s January 9, 2017 and March 24, 2017 resolutions via another Petition for Review on Certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 230823, and the Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s rulings on June 5, 2017. Petitioner’s conviction attained finality on June 25, 2019.

The Motion for Home Care/House Arrest and the Sandiganbayan’s Denial

On December 2, 2020, petitioner filed in the Sandiganbayan a Motion seeking to serve her sentence through home care or house arrest at Lunhaw Farm Resort, Barangay Bojo, Municipality of Aloguinsan, Cebu. She invoked direct and close monitoring and supervision by local BJMP officers or by Probation Officers of the Department of Justice, and she requested that she be allowed to serve her sentence together with counsel by way of recognizance.

In its Resolution dated December 17, 2020, the Sandiganbayan denied the Motion for failure to submit evidence—specifically medical records or a physician’s report—to show that petitioner suffered from health conditions that would thwart her movement and usual way of living. It also rejected petitioner’s fear of contracting COVID-19 in a penal facility as conjecture and speculation lacking proof.

The Sandiganbayan further reasoned that home care/house arrest did not appear in the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and that petitioner pointed to no law providing an alternative mode of confinement for prisoners convicted by final judgment on health considerations. It held that petitioner must therefore serve her sentence in the places provided by law, in accordance with Articles 78 and 86 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

Resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration

Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the Sandiganbayan denied the motion in a Resolution dated March 9, 2021. It held that the Motion for Reconsideration had been filed out of time, reasoning that it should have been filed within a non-extendible period of five days from receipt of the December 17, 2020 resolution pursuant to the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases (A.M. No. 5-06-10).

The Sandiganbayan also addressed the merits. It stated that its prior grants of house/hospital arrest to former Presidents Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Joseph Estrada were not controlling judicial precedents set by the Court, and that petitioner’s circumstances were materially different. It further ruled that petitioner’s reliance on Paderanga v. Court of Appeals was misplaced because the phrase “in the custody of the law” discussed in Paderanga concerned bail application procedures and did not establish authority for a convicted prisoner to serve sentence outside the penal institution.

Issues Raised in the Petition

Petitioner anchored her Petition for Certiorari on grave abuse of discretion. She argued that her Motion was neither prohibited nor meritorious under the Continuous Trial Guidelines, and that the Guidelines did not cover post-conviction motions, such that the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure should have been applied. She also asserted that her Motion was a litigious motion under Section 5, Rule 15 of the 2019 Rules of Court, requiring hearing and resolution on the basis of the evidence presented.

Substantively, petitioner contended that the framers of the RPC did not intend Articles 78 and 86 to operate as a “death trap” during the COVID-19 pandemic. She further argued that Article 78 could not “defy and rise higher than” the constitutional right to health under Section 15, Article II of the 1987 Constitution.

Respondents’ Position

The People opposed the Petition on multiple grounds. First, it argued that petitioner could not obtain modification or amendment of the penalty after conviction had become final. Second, it maintained that the Sandiganbayan had not committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the Motion, given that the Motion was allegedly unmeritorious and lacked evidentiary support. Third, it asserted that there were no constitutional or legal bases for granting the relief sought. Fourth, it argued that the relief would violate the equal protection clause because other similarly situated prisoners would be denied the same treatment.

The Court’s Ruling on Grave Abuse of Discretion

The Court dismissed the Petition for lack of merit and affirmed both Sandiganbayan resolutions. It first rejected petitioner’s argument that the Continuous Trial Guidelines did not apply to post-conviction motions. The Court held that the Guidelines likewise governed post-conviction motions like petitioner’s Motion.

The Court found that petitioner’s Motion was properly denied outright as an unmeritorious motion. It relied on Part III, Section 2(c) of the Continuous Trial Guidelines, which provides that motions are meritorious only when they allege plausible grounds supported by relevant documents and/or competent evidence, and that motions that do not conform are to be treated as unmeritorious and denied outright. The Court agreed with the Sandiganbayan that petitioner did not support her Motion with relevant documents such as medical records or a physician’s report proving the alleged health conditions affecting her usual way of living. It also considered petitioner’s attached materials—such as various awards—irrelevant to the health-based premise of her request.

Because the Court treated the Motion as unmeritorious, it sustained the Sandiganbayan’s denial without hearing, as stated in the assailed Resolution dated December 17, 2020. The Court then held that the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration was likewise proper. It further reasoned that even assuming the Motion were meritorious, petitioner should have filed her Motion for Reconsideration within the non-extendible five calendar days from receipt of the December 17, 2020 resolution under the same Section 2(c), Part III of the Continuous Trial Guidelines.

Timeliness of the Motion for Reconsideration and Rejection of the 2019 Rules Argument

The Court held that petitioner’s reliance on Section 1, Rule 52 of the 2019 Rules of Court was misplaced. It observed that Rule 52 allows a motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution within fifteen days from notice. The Court characterized the assailed December 17, 2020 resolution as an interlocutory order, not a judgment or final resolution, and therefore concluded that Section 1, Rule 52 did not apply. Thus, the Court affirmed that the Motion for Reconsideration was correctly denied for being filed beyond the required five-day period.

Lack of Legal Basis to Serve Sentence Outside Penal Institutions

The Court further agreed with the Sandiganbayan that the laws and precedents cited by petitioner did not support her theory. It cited Articles 78 and 86 of the RPC, stressing the rules governing execution of penalties and the places where enumerated penalties must be served. Article 78 mandates that no penalty be executed except by virtue of a final judgment, and that penalties be served according to law and the special regulations governing the institutions where penalties are suffered. Article 86 provides that the relevant penalties, including prision mayor, are to be executed and served in the places and penal establishments provided by the Administrative Code or by law.

The Court held that Article 88a on community service—even as amended by RA 11362—did not provide for “home care/house arrest.” It underscored that Article 88a, in lieu of jail, permits community service only for arresto menor and arresto mayor, and vests discretion in the court for the mode of service. It emphasized that petitioner’s penalty—six years and one month to ten years—fell within the range of prision mayor and therefore did not come within the community service framework. On that basis, it concluded that the Sandiganbayan had no discretion to allow petitioner to serve sentence through community service, and more so through “home care/house arrest.”

Rejection of Reliance on Paderanga, Recognizance, and COVID-19 Fears

The Court upheld the Sandiganbayan’s ruling that petitioner could not take refuge in Paderanga. The Court stated that the issue in Paderanga concerned bail application and the limited concept of “constructive custody of the law,” which allows proceedings to proceed even without physical presence where absence is due to health-related reasons in the bail context. It held that such concept did not become precedent permitting a convicted prisoner to serve sentence outside a penal institution because of poor health.

It likewise rejected petitioner’s request for release on recognizan

...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.

About Privacy Terms