G.R. No. 103276 April 11, 1996
DOMINGO DE GUZMAN, petitioner, vs. THE SANDIGANBAYAN (Second Division) and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FRANCISCO, J.:
De Guzman was charged with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act with the following evidence:
1) lone prosecution witness Josephine Angeles' testimony that no such training programs were held at the designated places and
2) petitioner's failure to present a single receipt to support due disbursement of the P200,000.00, resulting from his former lawyers' insistence in filing a demurrer to evidence despite prior leave for that purpose having been denied by the Sandiganbayan.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
*Sandiganbayan: De Guzman convicted of violation of Section 3(e) of the "Anti- Graft and Corrupt Practices Act" for his alleged failure to account for P200,000.00 received for certain official training programs of the Department of Agriculture Entry of judgment was ordered, to be made in due course. 5 Six (6) years and one (1) month as minimum, to nine (9) years and one (1) day as maximum in jail await petitioner.
*SC: affirmed Sandiganbayan.
*SC (MR): denied motion.
Petitioner takes a novel recourse by filing the instant "Omnibus Motion For Leave to Vacate First Motion For Reconsideration In The Light Of The Present Developments And To Consider Evidence Presented Herein And To Set Aside Conviction". This was filed on petitioner's behalf by a new counsel, as shown by the "Entry of Appearance and Motion For Leave To Submit Attached Omnibus Motion" filed on June 27, 1994 after petitioner's former lawyers withdrew their appearance.
petitioner, for the first time, seeks to be relieved from what he considers as the serious and costly mistake of his former lawyers in demurring to the prosecution evidence after court leave was denied, the effect of which deprived him of presenting before the Sandiganbayan the pieces of documentary evidence that would have completely belied the accusation against him. Annexed to the Omnibus Motion are photocopies of the list of expenses and receipts 12 in support of the liquidation voucher (Exhibit "E") showing due disbursement of the P200,000.00 received for training programs
DOMINGO DE GUZMAN, petitioner, vs. THE SANDIGANBAYAN (Second Division) and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FRANCISCO, J.:
De Guzman was charged with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act with the following evidence:
1) lone prosecution witness Josephine Angeles' testimony that no such training programs were held at the designated places and
2) petitioner's failure to present a single receipt to support due disbursement of the P200,000.00, resulting from his former lawyers' insistence in filing a demurrer to evidence despite prior leave for that purpose having been denied by the Sandiganbayan.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
*Sandiganbayan: De Guzman convicted of violation of Section 3(e) of the "Anti- Graft and Corrupt Practices Act" for his alleged failure to account for P200,000.00 received for certain official training programs of the Department of Agriculture Entry of judgment was ordered, to be made in due course. 5 Six (6) years and one (1) month as minimum, to nine (9) years and one (1) day as maximum in jail await petitioner.
*SC: affirmed Sandiganbayan.
*SC (MR): denied motion.
Petitioner takes a novel recourse by filing the instant "Omnibus Motion For Leave to Vacate First Motion For Reconsideration In The Light Of The Present Developments And To Consider Evidence Presented Herein And To Set Aside Conviction". This was filed on petitioner's behalf by a new counsel, as shown by the "Entry of Appearance and Motion For Leave To Submit Attached Omnibus Motion" filed on June 27, 1994 after petitioner's former lawyers withdrew their appearance.
petitioner, for the first time, seeks to be relieved from what he considers as the serious and costly mistake of his former lawyers in demurring to the prosecution evidence after court leave was denied, the effect of which deprived him of presenting before the Sandiganbayan the pieces of documentary evidence that would have completely belied the accusation against him. Annexed to the Omnibus Motion are photocopies of the list of expenses and receipts 12 in support of the liquidation voucher (Exhibit "E") showing due disbursement of the P200,000.00 received for training programs
actually conducted.
ISSUE:
WON De Guzman's Motion should be granted
HELD:
YES, substantial rights must ultimately reign supreme over technicalities, thus, the Court is swayed to reconsider.
Clearly, when "transcendental matters" like life, liberty or State security are involved, suspension of the rules is likely to be welcomed more generously.
Under the circumstances, higher interests of justice and equity demand that petitioner be not penalized for the costly importunings of his previous lawyers based on the same principles why this Court had, on many occasions where it granted new trial, excused parties from the negligence or mistakes of counsel.
The fact that the decision . . . has become final, does not preclude a modification or an alteration thereof because even with the finality of judgment, when its execution becomes impossible or unjust, as in the instant case, it may be modified or altered to harmonize the same with justice and the facts.
In resume, this is a situation where a rigid application of rules of procedure must bow to the overriding goal of courts of justice to render justice where justice is due — to secure to every individual all possible legal means to prove his innocence of a crime of which he is charged. To borrow Justice Padilla's words in "People v. CA, et. al.", 32 (where substantial justice was upheld anew in allowing therein accused's appeal despite the withdrawal of his notice of appeal and his subsequent escape from confinement).
CASE IS REMANDED TO THE SANDIGANBAYAN FOR RECEPTION & APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
"if only to truly make the courts really genuine instruments in the administration of justice", the Court believes it imperative, in order to assure against any possible miscarriage of justice resulting from petitioner's failure to present his crucial evidence through no fault of his, that this case be remanded to the Sandiganbayan for reception and appreciation of petitioner's evidence.
ISSUE:
WON De Guzman's Motion should be granted
HELD:
YES, substantial rights must ultimately reign supreme over technicalities, thus, the Court is swayed to reconsider.
Clearly, when "transcendental matters" like life, liberty or State security are involved, suspension of the rules is likely to be welcomed more generously.
Under the circumstances, higher interests of justice and equity demand that petitioner be not penalized for the costly importunings of his previous lawyers based on the same principles why this Court had, on many occasions where it granted new trial, excused parties from the negligence or mistakes of counsel.
The fact that the decision . . . has become final, does not preclude a modification or an alteration thereof because even with the finality of judgment, when its execution becomes impossible or unjust, as in the instant case, it may be modified or altered to harmonize the same with justice and the facts.
In resume, this is a situation where a rigid application of rules of procedure must bow to the overriding goal of courts of justice to render justice where justice is due — to secure to every individual all possible legal means to prove his innocence of a crime of which he is charged. To borrow Justice Padilla's words in "People v. CA, et. al.", 32 (where substantial justice was upheld anew in allowing therein accused's appeal despite the withdrawal of his notice of appeal and his subsequent escape from confinement).
CASE IS REMANDED TO THE SANDIGANBAYAN FOR RECEPTION & APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
"if only to truly make the courts really genuine instruments in the administration of justice", the Court believes it imperative, in order to assure against any possible miscarriage of justice resulting from petitioner's failure to present his crucial evidence through no fault of his, that this case be remanded to the Sandiganbayan for reception and appreciation of petitioner's evidence.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment