Payumo vs Sandiganbayan

GR No. 151911

July 25, 2011

(Ponente was transferred)

Facts:

1.) The petitions stem from the facts of Criminal Case No. 4219 involving a shooting incident that
occurred on February 26, 1980 at around 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon in Sitio Aluag, Barangay
Sta. Barbara, Iba, Zambales. A composite team of Philippine Constabulary (PC) and Integrated
National Police (INP) units allegedly fired at a group of civilians instantly killing Amante
Payumo and wounding Teofilo Payumo, Barangay Captain of Sta. Barbara at Cabatuhan River;
Edgar Payumo, Reynaldo Ruanto; Crisanto Ruanto; Apolinario Ruanto; and Exequiel Bonde.
The following were indicted for Murder with Multiple Frustrated and Attempted Murder
before the Sandiganbayan: Domiciano Cabigao, Nestor Domacena, Rolando Doblado, Ernesto
Pampuan, Edgardo Prado, Romeo Dominico, Rodolfo Erese, Ramon Garcia and Carlos
Pacheco.
2.) Accused Rodolfo Erese, however, died before the arraignment. When arraigned, the rest of
the accused pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. During the trial, the accused
interposed the defenses of lawful performance of duty, self-defense, mistake of fact, and alibi.
They insisted that the incident was a result of a military operation, and not an ambush as
claimed by the prosecution.
3.) After four (4) years of trial, the Second Division of the Sandiganbayan rendered its Decision 4
dated October 5, 1984, penned by Justice Romeo M. Escareal, convicting the accused as co-
principals in the crime of Murder with Multiple Frustrated and Attempted Murder.
4.) On October 23, 1984, the accused jointly moved for a reconsideration of the aforesaid
decision, but the motion was denied by the Second Division in its Resolution dated December
10, 1984 and promulgated on December 11, 1984. On January 11, 1985, the accused 8led
their Motion for New Trial anchored on the following grounds: (1) Error of law or irregularities
have been committed during the trial prejudicial to the substantive rights of the accused; and
(2) the accused were denied procedural due process of law.
5.) In view of the appeal (G.R. No. 69422) before this Court, the Sandiganbayan Second Division
issued a Resolution dated January 31, 1985 denying accused's Motion for New Trial on the
ground that it no longer had any jurisdiction over the case. On May 29, 1987, this Court
rendered its Decision in G.R. No. 69422 granting the petition, setting aside the October 5,
1984 Decision of the Sandiganbayan and remanding the case for a new trial.
6.) Thus, Criminal Case No. 4219 was remanded to the Sandiganbayan and was raffled to the First
Division. Meanwhile, upon motion of the accused, the Court clarified in its Resolution dated
February 2, 1989 that the conduct of a new trial should not be limited to the mere
presentation of newly discovered evidence but "should be full and complete, taking into
account the other serious allegations touching on due process."
 7.) On February 23, 1999, the Fifth Division promulgated its 92-page judgment 6 dated November
27, 1998, penned by Justice Godofredo T. Legaspi, convicting the accused of the crime of
Murder with Multiple Attempted Murder
8.) On March 8, 1999, the accused 8led their Omnibus Motion to Set Aside Judgment and for
New Trial contending that errors of law or irregularities had been committed during and after
trial which were prejudicial to their substantive and constitutional rights.
9.) Since the Fifth Division could not reach unanimity in resolving the aforesaid omnibus motion,
a Special Fifth Division composed of 8ve (5) members of the Sandiganbayan was constituted
pursuant to Section 1 (b) of Rule XVIII of the 1984 Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan. On
September 27, 2001, Special Fifth Division, voting 3-2, issued the subject Resolution
promulgated on October 24, 2001, setting aside the November 27, 1998 Decision and granting
a second new trial of the case.
10.) The Special Fifth Division reasoned out that the November 27, 1998 Decision of the Fifth
Division penned by Justice Godofredo T. Legaspi, (Justice Legaspi) could not have been validly
promulgated and could not have acquired binding effect since Justice Legaspi had transferred
to the Second Division and, hence, he ceased to be a member of the Fifth Division before the
Decision was promulgated on February 23, 1999. Further, the Special Fifth Division ruled that
a second new trial was necessary because the directive of this Court for the conduct of a trial
de novo "has not yet been fully and completely complied with."

Issue:

WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT COURT ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION

Ruling:

The Court finds the petition for certiorari impressed with merit. The Sandiganbayan is a special
court of the same level as the Court of Appeals (CA), and possessing all the inherent powers of a court of
justice, with functions of a trial court. It is a collegial court. Collegial is defined as relating to a collegium
or group of colleagues. In turn, a collegium is "an executive body with each member having approximately
equal power and authority." The members of the graft court act on the basis of consensus or majority
rule. The three Justices of a Division, rather than a single judge, are naturally expected to exert keener
judiciousness and to apply broader circumspection in trying and deciding cases. The seemingly higher
standard is due in part to the fact that the reviews of judgment of conviction are elevated directly to this
Court generally through the discretionary mode of petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, Rules
of Court, which eliminates issues of fact, instead of via an ordinary appeal whereby the judgment of
conviction still undergoes intermediate reviews in the appellate court before ultimately reaching the
Court, if at all. In resolving the private respondents' Omnibus Motion, the majority of the Sandiganbayan
Special Fifth Division, declared that after reviewing the case of Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation
v. Intermediate Appellate Court, it realized that it might have erred in the promulgation of the November
27, 1998 Decision considering that at the time of its promulgation, the ponente, Justice Legaspi, was no
longer a member of the Fifth Division as he already transferred to the Second Division as its Senior
Member. According to the Special Fifth Division, the thrust and spirit of the case of Consolidated Bank and
Trust Corporation was that a decision could no longer be promulgated after the ponente died because
the latter had "already lost that freedom, authority and right to amend or even reverse during the period
intervening from the time of his death up to the time of promulgation." The division ruled that the ratio
decidendi in the aforecited case applied mutatis mutandis to the present case where a member of a
division was transferred to another division and ceased to be a member of it before the promulgation of
a decision. Thus, the cessation of Justice Legaspi's membership in the Fifth Division carried with it the
cessation of all his authority and power to continue participating in the resolution of Criminal Case No.
4219 and all other cases assigned to said division, which included the authority and right to change or
amend the November 27, 1998 Decision up to the time of its promulgation.

The Court does not agree. A judgment of a division of the Sandiganbayan shall be promulgated by
reading the judgment or sentence in the presence of the accused and any Justice of the division which
rendered the same. Promulgation of the decision is an important part of the decision-making process.
Promulgation signifies that on the date it was made, the judge or justices who signed the decision
continued to support it which could be inferred from his silence or failure to withdraw his vote despite
being able to do so. A decision or resolution of the court becomes such, only from the moment of its
promulgation. A final decision or resolution becomes binding only after it is promulgated and not before.
It is an elementary doctrine that for a judgment to be binding, it must be duly signed and promulgated
during the incumbency of the judge who penned it. In this connection, the Court En Banc issued the
Resolution dated February 10, 1983 implementing B.P. 129 which merely requires that the judge who
pens the decision is still an incumbent judge, that is, a judge of the same court, albeit now assigned to a
different branch, at the time the decision is promulgated. In People v. CFI of Quezon, Branch X, it was
clarified that a judge who died, resigned, retired, had been dismissed, promoted to a higher court or
appointed to another office with inconsistent functions, would no longer be considered an incumbent
member of the court and his decision written thereafter would be invalid. Indeed, one who is no longer a
member of the court at the time the final decision or resolution is signed and promulgated cannot validly
take part in that decision or resolution. Much less could he be the ponente of the decision or resolution.
Also, when a judge or a member of the collegiate court, who had earlier signed or registered his vote, has
vacated his office at the time of the promulgation of the decision or resolution, his vote is automatically
withdrawn or cancelled.

Guided by the foregoing principles, the judgment of conviction dated November 27, 1998 penned
by Justice Legaspi must be declared valid. Apparently, it was not necessary that he be a member of the
Fifth Division at the time the decision was promulgated since he remained an incumbent justice of the
Sandiganbayan. What is important is that the ponente in a collegiate court remains a member of said
court at the time his ponencia is promulgated because, at any time before that, he has the privilege of
changing his opinion or making some last minute changes therein for consideration and approval of his
colleagues. After all, each division is not separate and distinct from the other divisions as they all
constitute one Sandiganbayan. Jurisdiction is vested in the court, not in the judges or justices. Thus, when
a case is filed in the Sandiganbayan, jurisdiction over the case does not attach to the division or justice
alone, to the exclusion of the other divisions. Moreover, the other two 37 members then of the Fifth
Division signed and adopted the judgment of conviction dated November 27, 1998, and continued to
support it until its promulgation on February 23, 1999. The members reached their conclusion in
consultation and, accordingly, rendered it as a collective judgment after due deliberation. Hence, there
was no procedural defect.

Besides, the presumption that the three justices had regularly performed their official function
has not at all been rebutted by contrary evidence. Not an iota of evidence was adduced to show that the
three justices were either impelled by malice or corrupt motive or inspired by an intention to violate the
law or well-known legal rules in promulgating the judgment of conviction. At any rate, the decision penned
by Justice Legaspi cannot be said to be a decision of another court, but of the same Sandiganbayan and
of which the ponente was an incumbent justice when he wrote the decision until its promulgation.
Notably, the 1984 Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan, its prevailing rules at the time the challenged
October 24, 2001 Resolution was issued, did not provide the procedure to be followed in case the ponente
would be transferred to another division at any time before the promulgation of the decision. This time,
however, under the 2002 Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan which was approved by the Court
En Banc in the Resolution dated August 28, 2002 and issued in A.M. No. 02-6-07-SB, the situation
contemplated in this controversy has been covered. Section 4 (k) of Rule XII thereof provides:

SEC. 4. Cases Submitted for Decision; Assignment to Ponente. —

xxx xxx xxx (k) If the justice to whom the case is assigned for study and report is transferred to
another Division as its permanent member, he shall bring with him and write his report of the cases
assigned to him in his original Division together with the other members of the Division to which the case
was submitted for decision. The Division from which the Justice to whom the case is assigned for study
and report came shall be known as a Special Division. xxx xxx xxx

On the propriety of the grant by the Special Fifth Division of the motion for new trial in Criminal
Case No. 4219, the Court finds the same to be devoid of any legal and factual basis. The majority of the
Special Fifth Division granted a new trial on the following grounds: (1) serious irregularity during the trial
due to the erroneous admission of the testimonies of Teofilo and Edgar, which according to the
Sandiganbayan, were tainted with irregularities of the "too frequent rotation of Justices hearing the case"
38 and, thus, had to be taken anew; and (2) to afford the accused the opportunity to present in evidence
the records of the JAGO relative to the incident that happened on February 26, 1980 in Sitio Aluag, Brgy.
Sta. Barbara, Iba, Zambales to shed light on the crucial issue as to whether the shooting incident was an
ambush or the result of a military operation.