Case Summary (G.R. No. 256070)
Background and Legal Proceedings
Moreno and her co-accused were indicted and found guilty in 2014 for corrupt practices under Section 3(e), RA 3019, and sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of six years and one month to ten years with perpetual disqualification from public office. Various motions for reconsideration and petitions for review were filed and denied, culminating in the finality of petitioner’s conviction on June 25, 2019. Nearly one and a half years later, in December 2020, petitioner filed a Motion to serve her sentence under house arrest or home care at a private farm resort, citing health concerns and monitoring by local authorities and her counsel.
Sandiganbayan's Resolution and Rationale
The Sandiganbayan denied the motion on December 17, 2020, for failure to substantiate her health claims with medical evidence, such as medical records or physician’s reports demonstrating incapacitating health conditions. The tribunal rejected petitioner’s COVID-19 susceptibility argument, considering it speculative and unproven. The Sandiganbayan emphasized that “home care/house arrest” is not an authorized form of sentence execution under current laws or Rules of Court and that sentences must be served in penal institutions prescribed by Articles 78 and 86 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied as untimely under the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases (Continuous Trial Guidelines), which impose a strict five-day period for filing such motions.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Continuous Trial Guidelines do not govern post-conviction motions, contending instead that the 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Court apply, which allow fifteen days to file a motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution. She further maintained that her motion was a litigious motion deserving of hearing and adjudication based on evidence. She invoked the constitutional protection of the right to health under Section 15, Article II of the 1987 Constitution, urging that Articles 78 and 86 of the RPC should not be applied rigidly during a public health crisis.
Respondents’ Arguments
The respondents opposed the petition, underscoring the finality of petitioner’s conviction and the absence of any legal or constitutional basis for modifying or amending the penalty. The Sandiganbayan’s refusal to entertain the motion without a hearing was defended on grounds that the motion lacked merit and relevant evidence. Furthermore, granting such relief would violate the equal protection clause by affording petitioner special treatment unavailable to others in similar circumstances.
Issue Presented
The key issue was whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion or acted without jurisdiction in denying the Motion to serve sentence under home care/house arrest.
Court’s Findings on Procedural Grounds
The Court held that the Continuous Trial Guidelines apply to post-conviction motions, including motions for reconsideration like the one filed by petitioner. The denial of the motion was proper as petitioner failed to present relevant medical evidence required to substantiate her purported health condition. The lack of such evidence rendered the motion unmeritorious and subject to outright denial without a hearing. Moreover, petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was correctly denied for tardiness since it was filed beyond the mandatory five-day period stipulated in the Continuous Trial Guidelines. Petitioner’s reliance on the fifteen-day period under Section 1, Rule 52 of the 2019 Rules of Court was misplaced, as the December 17, 2020 resolution was interlocutory, not a final judgment or resolution.
Legal Analysis on Substance and Applicable Law
The Court reaffirmed that under Article 78 of the RPC, penalties must be executed only by virtue of a final judgment and in accordance with prescribed legal forms and circumstances, including the designated penal institutions. Article 86 mandates that sentences like prision mayor (which covers petitioner’s penalty range) must be served in places established by law. Although Article 88a of the RPC (amended by RA 11362) allows courts to require community service instead of jail for arresto menor and arresto mayor penalties, this discretion does not extend to penalties of the magnitude imposed on petitioner. Thus, neither community service nor home care/house arrest is legally available alternatives in this case.
The Court also noted that the recognizance invoked by petitioner is inapplicable as it is a measure for temporary release pending trial, not post-conviction relief, especially after finality has been reached.
Rejection of Judicial Precedents Cited by Petitioner
Petitioner’s citation of Paderanga v. Court of Appeals was deemed inapposite since t
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 256070)
Background and Factual Antecedents
- Cynthia G. Moreno, former mayor of Aloguinsan, Cebu, served for twelve years and was the incumbent mayor when indicted for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
- Moreno, along with co-accused, was found guilty on June 5, 2014, and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six years and one month to ten years, with perpetual disqualification from holding public office.
- Subsequent motions for reconsideration and petitions for review on certiorari by Moreno and co-accused were denied by the Sandiganbayan and the Supreme Court, affirming the finality of conviction on June 25, 2019.
- On December 2, 2020, Moreno filed a Motion to Serve Sentence Under Home Care/House Arrest at Lunhaw Farm Resort, Cebu, citing health concerns and stipulating monitored supervision by BJMP or DOJ Probation Officers, supported by counsel’s recognizance.
- The Sandiganbayan denied the motion on December 17, 2020, and Moreno’s motion for reconsideration was dismissed as untimely on March 9, 2021.
Issues Presented for Resolution
- The core issue: Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it denied Moreno’s motion to serve her sentence under home care/house arrest.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Moreno argued the Continuous Trial Guidelines (CTG) do not apply to post-conviction motions such as hers and therefore the 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure govern, entitling her motion to hearing and resolution based on evidence.
- She contended that Articles 78 and 86 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) should not be interpreted as inflexible rules or a “death trap,” especially amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.
- Moreno claimed the constitutional mandate under Section 15, Article II of the 1987 Constitution to protect public health should prevail over the RPC’s provisions.
- She relied on Paderanga v. Court of Appeals, contending that “in custody of the law” meant she should be allowed to serve her sentence under house arrest.
Respondents’ Arguments
- The People, through the Office of the Ombudsman, contended the penalty is final and cannot be modified or amended.
- They argued Sandiganbayan’s denial was not grave abuse of discretion as Moreno’s motion lacked merit and evidentiary support, justifying summary denial without hearing.
- Respondents stressed there is no legal or constitutional basis to allow home care/house arrest as an alternative mode of senten