GR 151911; (July, 2011) (Digest)
G.R. No. 151911 & G.R. No. 154535, July 25, 2011
EDGAR PAYUMO, REYNALDO RUANTO, CRISANTO RUANTO, APOLINARIO RUANTO, AND EXEQUIEL BONDE, PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, AND OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, DOMICIANO CABIGAO, NESTOR DOMACENA, ROLANDO DOBLADO, ERNESTO PAMPUAN, EDGARDO PRADO, ROMEO DOMINICO, RAMON GARCIA, AND CARLOS PACHECO, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 154535] NESTOR DOMACENA, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND EDGAR PAYUMO, REYNALDO RUANTO, CRISANTO RUANTO, APOLINARIO RUANTO, AND EXEQUIEL BONDE, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
This case involves two consolidated petitions stemming from Criminal Case No. 4219 for Murder with Multiple Frustrated and Attempted Murder before the Sandiganbayan. The charges arose from a shooting incident on February 26, 1980, in Iba, Zambales, where a composite team of Philippine Constabulary and Integrated National Police personnel allegedly fired upon civilians, killing Amante Payumo and wounding several others, including the petitioners. The accused interposed defenses of lawful performance of duty, self-defense, mistake of fact, and alibi. After trial, the Sandiganbayan Second Division convicted the accused on October 5, 1984. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court ( G.R. No. 69422 ). On May 29, 1987, the Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the 1984 decision, and remanded the case for a new trial. The Sandiganbayan Fifth Division, after the new trial, promulgated a judgment on February 23, 1999, dated November 27, 1998, again convicting the accused. The accused filed an Omnibus Motion to Set Aside Judgment and for New Trial. The Sandiganbayan Fifth Division, in a Resolution dated October 24, 2001, granted the motion, set aside its 1998 Decision, and ordered the case re-raffled for further proceedings. The petitioners (victims) filed G.R. No. 151911 assailing this Resolution. Respondent Nestor Domacena filed G.R. No. 154535 to nullify a subsequent Sandiganbayan Resolution denying his motion to dismiss. G.R. No. 154535 was later dismissed by the Supreme Court due to Domacena’s death.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in granting the accused’s Omnibus Motion to Set Aside the 1998 Decision and ordering a new raffle for further proceedings.
RULING
No, the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan acted within its jurisdiction and sound discretion. The grant of a new trial is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. The Sandiganbayan’s Fifth Division, having lost the participation of two justices from the division that penned the 1998 Decision, was justified in granting the motion to set aside the judgment to allow a complete division to review the case records and assess the grounds for new trial. The Court found no arbitrariness or whimsicality in the Sandiganbayan’s action. The order for re-raffle was a procedural consequence of setting aside the decision and was within the Sandiganbayan’s authority to control the disposition of cases. The petitions were dismissed for lack of merit. The Supreme Court emphasized that certiorari is not a substitute for appeal and will only lie for grave abuse of discretion, which was not present in this case.