G.R. Nos. 156687-88; May 21, 2009
PANFILO D. BONGCAC, Petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SPECIAL PROSECUTOR FORTUNATO LIM, and TORIBIO BON, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Panfilo D. Bongcac, designated as the Mayor’s representative to the City Market Committee of Tagbilaran City, was charged with two counts of Estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code. The information alleged that he received money from respondents Fortunato Lim and Toribio Bon for the construction of market stalls, which he failed to deliver. The Sandiganbayan found him guilty in a Decision dated March 28, 2001. His petition for review before the Supreme Court (G.R. Nos. 149711-12) was denied in a Resolution dated February 20, 2002, which became final and executory on April 2, 2002.
Subsequently, the Sandiganbayan issued a notice for the execution of judgment. Petitioner filed a “Very Urgent Petition for Extraordinary Relief” with the Supreme Court in the already-terminated G.R. Nos. 149711-12, seeking to reverse his conviction. Simultaneously, he filed a motion with the Sandiganbayan to suspend the execution. The Sandiganbayan denied his motion, ordered the issuance of a warrant for his arrest, and cancelled his cash bail bond. Petitioner then filed the present petition for certiorari and prohibition to challenge the Sandiganbayan’s Resolution.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to suspend execution and in ordering the cancellation of his bail bond.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s Resolution. The Court held that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The judgment of conviction had long become final and executory. A final judgment is immutable and unalterable; it may no longer be modified, except for clerical errors or the correction of void judgments. The petitioner’s filing of a “Very Urgent Petition for Extraordinary Relief” in a case already terminated by a final Resolution was a mere subterfuge to delay the execution of a final judgment. Litigation must end once a judgment becomes final; the winning party has a right to its execution.
On the cancellation of the bail bond, the Court ruled it was proper and automatic under Section 22, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which states that bail is deemed automatically cancelled upon the execution of a judgment of conviction. The Sandiganbayan’s order was a ministerial duty following the finality of the conviction. Therefore, no grave abuse of discretion attended the assailed Resolution.