G.R. No. 157824 ; January 17, 2005
WAINWRIGHT RIVERA, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES of the FOURTH DIVISION, SANDIGANBAYAN RODOLFO PALATTAO, GREGORY ONG, MA. CRISTINA CORTEZ-ESTRADA and PROSECUTORS JOHN I.C. TURALBA, ORLANDO I. INES, JAIME C. BLANCAFLOR, ROSALYN M. LOJA of the OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTORS/OMBUDSMAN, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Wainwright Rivera was charged before the Sandiganbayan with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) in Criminal Case No. 24643, consolidated with another case. After presenting fourteen witnesses, the prosecution manifested it had no more witnesses and was granted time to formally offer its documentary evidence. Instead of filing the formal offer, the prosecution filed an “Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration” seeking to withdraw its prior manifestation and to reopen its case to present additional testimonial and documentary evidence from several bank managers.
The Sandiganbayan, in an Order dated October 29, 2001, partially granted the motion but only for the other criminal case (No. 24642). For Rivera’s case (No. 24643), the court denied the motion to reopen and directed the prosecution to formally offer its evidence within seven days. The prosecution failed to comply with this order. Consequently, the Sandiganbayan, in a Resolution dated December 17, 2002, dismissed Criminal Case No. 24643 against Rivera and his co-accused for failure to prosecute. The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Rivera then filed this petition for certiorari, arguing the dismissal was invalid and seeking to reinstate the case.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing Criminal Case No. 24643 for failure to prosecute.

RULING

No, the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The petition is dismissed. The court’s dismissal was a proper exercise of its inherent power to control its docket and prevent undue delays. The prosecution, after having been given ample opportunity to present its case, declared it was resting its case. When granted a final period to formally offer its evidence, it instead filed a motion to reopen to present more evidence, which the court rightly denied for Rivera’s case. The prosecution’s subsequent failure to formally offer its evidence within the granted extension constituted a clear failure to prosecute.
The legal logic is grounded in procedural order and the discretion of the trial court to manage proceedings. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 requires a showing that the respondent tribunal acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Here, the Sandiganbayan’s actions were neither arbitrary nor capricious. It acted within its sound discretion to enforce its orders and ensure the expeditious disposition of cases. The prosecution’s inaction warranted dismissal under the rules. Furthermore, the Supreme Court found the petitioner failed to comply with procedural requirements for certiorari, such as submitting a sworn certification against forum shopping, which alone is sufficient ground for dismissal.