Title
People vs. Celorio
Case
G.R. No. 226335
Decision Date
Jun 23, 2021
SSS member fraudulently claimed disability benefits using fake documents, convicted under Social Security Law; Supreme Court reversed RTC’s void decision, imposed correct penalty, and invalidated probation and liability offset.
fraudulent documents
disability benefits
penalty
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 226335)

Factual Background

Celorio was an SSS member. On May 26, 2004, she filed a claim for disability benefits for Pulmonary Tuberculosis. During a random checking of fully settled disability benefit claims, the SSS suspected that Celorio’s supporting documents were spurious. The matter was referred to the SSS Fraud Investigation Department, which confirmed that the documents Celorio submitted were fraudulent.

After the discovery of the fraudulent documents, the SSS demanded that Celorio return the benefits she had received in the total amount of P93,948.80. When Celorio ignored the demand, the SSS instituted a criminal complaint before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City.

In an Information dated June 4, 2008, Celorio was charged with violation of Section 28(a) and (b) of Republic Act No. 1161, as amended by Republic Act No. 8282. The Information alleged that, on or about September 26, 2005, in Quezon City, Celorio willfully and unlawfully made false statements of material fact in her claim for SSS disability, knowing that the statements were false and that the documents she presented, including a medical certificate, were spurious, to the damage and prejudice of the SSS.

Trial Court Proceedings

Celorio was arraigned on December 11, 2008 and pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued.

On April 23, 2013, the RTC issued a Decision, which it later replaced with an Amended Decision to correct the docket number. In the Amended Decision, the RTC found Celorio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violations of Section 28(a) and (b) of R.A. No. 1161, as amended. The RTC held that Celorio filed a disability claim dated May 26, 2004 and was granted a thirty percent rating for Pulmonary Tuberculosis, but she submitted fraudulent documents, namely: a DDR 1 form, an MMD 102 SSS medical certificate, a chest x-ray report, and a radiologic consultation report.

The RTC’s dispositive portion imposed, among others, imprisonment penalties inconsistent with the amendments introduced by R.A. No. 8282. It also ordered, by way of civil indemnity, that Celorio pay back P93,948.80 and further directed the offsetting of her civil liability against her total contributions, while directing the SSS to return to Celorio the balance of her contributions.

After the Amended Decision, Celorio filed an application for probation on April 25, 2013. On April 26, 2013, the SSS filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that under Section 28(b) of R.A. No. 1161, as amended by R.A. No. 8282, the applicable imprisonment range was not less than six (6) years and one (1) day and not more than twelve (12) years, contrary to the RTC’s imposition of a one-year imprisonment penalty. The SSS also argued that the RTC erred in ordering offsetting of Celorio’s civil liability against her contributions.

In a Resolution dated October 24, 2013, the RTC denied the SSS’s motion. It reasoned that the Amended Decision had attained finality upon Celorio’s filing of her probation application, citing Section 7 of Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, and concluded that it was prevented from amending its decision.

Thereafter, the RTC issued a Resolution dated December 19, 2013, granting Celorio’s application for probation and suspending execution of the imprisonment sentence, placing her under probation for two (2) years, subject to conditions.

Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals

Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA assailing: (a) the Amended Decision dated April 23, 2013 for imposing the wrong penalty; (b) the October 24, 2013 Resolution denying reconsideration; and (c) the December 19, 2013 Resolution granting probation. Petitioners claimed that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by: first, imposing an incorrect penalty of one (1) year notwithstanding that Section 28(b), as amended, mandated imprisonment of at least six (6) years and one (1) day; and second, ordering offsetting of Celorio’s civil liability against her SSS contributions in a manner allegedly contrary to the Social Security Law and the Civil Code provisions on compensation.

The CA dismissed the petition. It held that certiorari under Rule 65 was the wrong remedy because the proper recourse was an ordinary appeal under Rule 41. The CA viewed the alleged errors as errors of judgment rather than errors involving jurisdiction. It further stated that there was no showing that the RTC acted with patent and gross abuse warranting the extraordinary remedy of certiorari.

Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied the motion in a Resolution dated August 9, 2016.

Issues Raised Before the Supreme Court

Petitioners sought review and raised two core issues: first, whether a Rule 65 petition for certiorari was the proper remedy to assail the RTC’s Amended Decision and related Resolutions; and second, whether the CA erred in ruling that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion.

Petitioners’ Contentions

Petitioners argued that the CA erred in declaring certiorari to be an improper remedy. They maintained that the RTC failed to follow the penalty mandated by Section 28(b) of R.A. No. 1161, as amended by R.A. No. 8282, because it sentenced Celorio to only one year of imprisonment instead of the legally mandated minimum of six (6) years and one (1) day. Petitioners argued that such failure was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Petitioners also contended that the RTC wrongly held that its Amended Decision had attained finality once Celorio applied for probation, asserting that probation would not have been available had the RTC imposed the correct minimum penalty. They posited that, under Presidential Decree No. 968 (the Probation Law, as amended), probation could not be extended to persons whose maximum imprisonment exceeded six (6) years.

On the offsetting issue, petitioners insisted that the RTC’s directive was erroneous and contrary to the applicable rules on compensation.

Celorio’s Response

Celorio argued that the CA correctly dismissed the certiorari petition as a wrong remedy. She asserted that petitioners failed to show the kind of capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic action required to establish grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Celorio also pointed out that she accepted the judgment convicting her and sought probation, which the RTC granted, and she had already served and completed the probation term. She stressed that petitioners did not assail the probation or her release after compliance with the probation conditions and term.

Legal Basis and Reasoning of the Supreme Court

The Court granted the petition and treated the two issues jointly, emphasizing the distinction between errors of judgment and errors of jurisdiction, and the consequences of imposing a sentence based on a repealed or non-existing legal provision.

The Court explained that under Section 1, Rule 120 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, a criminal judgment involves two components: the verdict (a declaration that the accused is guilty or not guilty) and the sentence (the legal consequences imposed). It noted that trial courts in the Philippine system have the duty to deliver both verdict and sentence.

The Court reiterated that grave abuse of discretion means a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. It contrasted grave abuse of discretion with errors of judgment, citing the distinction that certiorari corrects errors of jurisdiction, not mere errors of judgment.

The Court then addressed whether grave abuse of discretion may arise when a trial court imposes a sentence based on a repealed or non-existent provision of law. It held that it does. The Court reasoned that a penal law prohibits an act and imposes a penalty; hence, once a law defining penalties is repealed, penalties under the repealed provision no longer exist. A sentence based on a repealed law is legally baseless and arbitrary. It stressed that such an act violates the separation of powers because judges may not impose penalties out of thin air or legislate by misapplying repealed provisions.

Applied to the case, the Court identified that Section 28(b) had been amended by R.A. No. 8282 in 1997, increasing imprisonment from the former range to the amended range of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day nor more than twelve (12) years, together with the corresponding fine range. The RTC had imposed the old imprisonment penalty of one (1) year and a fine of P5,000, which the Court found was clearly based on the superseded provision. The sentence was therefore invalid, and the Court held that the penalty should be corrected to conform to R.A. No. 8282.

Remedy: Certiorari vs. Appeal and the Effect of Probation

The Court proceeded to determine whether the prosecution availed of the proper remedy by filing certiorari under Rule 65 instead of an ordinary appeal. It explained that certiorari is designed to correct errors of jurisdiction, while appeal corrects errors of judgment. It found that the RTC’s imposition of a penalty grounded on a repealed law constituted an error of jurisdiction, not merely an error of law or judgment.

The Court further rejected the CA’s reliance on finality. It reasoned that the RTC’s Amended Decision did not attain finality because it imposed a void sentence that created no rights and imposed no duties, including the probation later approved. The Court invoked the principle that the immutability of an entered or executed sentence presupposes that the sentence is valid, and it cited the doctrine that void judgments do not become final and executory.

The Court also addressed the RTC’s view, and the likely effect of Section 7 of Rule 120, that a judgment becomes final when the accused applies for probation. It held that Section 7 of Rule 120 is inapplicable where the court’s jurisdiction is

...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